Policy

Introduction

Misconduct in university research undermines the research enterprise and is harmful to the university community, the research community generally, and the public. Institutions such as Miami University have the responsibility not only to promote a research environment that opposes such misconduct in research, but also to establish policies and procedures that deal effectively with allegations or evidence of misconduct. This policy statement deals primarily with the second imperative, and outlines Miami University’s procedures for handling allegations of misconduct.

Scope

This policy applies to all research conducted at Miami University, including work that is supported through  external funding or included in an application for external funding. The policy applies to any individual (or individuals) employed by an agent of, or affiliated by contract or agreement with Miami University. This may include, but is not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, emeritus faculty, emeritus staff, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, consultants, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees. The policy will be followed when an allegation of possible misconduct is received by the institution.

Definitions

“Research misconduct” is defined in 42 CFR 93.234 as the “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires all of the following:

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

“Allegation” is a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a Miami University or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services offical. 
“Complainant” means an individual who, in good faith, makes an allegation of research misconduct.
“Falsification” means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
“Fabrication” means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
“Inquiry” means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of 42 CFR 93.307 through 42 CFR 93.309
“Investigation” means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of 42 CFR 93.310 through 42 CFR 93.317.

“Intentionally” means “to act with the aim of carrying out the act.”

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

1. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.
2. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

“Recklessly” means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
“Respondent” means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.
“Subsequent Use Exception” applies only to the respondent’s use, republication, or citations to the portions of the research record that is alleged to have been falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized.

Defined Roles

The “Certifying Official” is the Institutional Official (IO) and is responsible for the following:

• Assuring on behalf of the institution that the institution complies with the institution’s policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.
• Certifying the content of the institution's annual report, which contains information specified by the Office of Research Integrity, and ensuring the report is submitted to the Office of Research Integrity. 

The “Institutional Official” (IO) for purposes of this policy is the Vice President for Research and Innovation. 

“Institutional Deciding Official” means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. This position is designated by the IO, but would typically serve as the University’s Executive VP for Academic Affairs & Provost. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.

“Research Integrity Officer (RIO)” is designated by the Institutional Official. The Certifying Official cannot also serve as the RIO. The RIO is required to:

• Evaluate, determine, and document whether an allegation of Research Misconduct, as defined herein, is sufficiently credible and specific such that potential evidence of research misconuct may be identified.

The "Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO)" is a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official authorized to impose suspension and debarment, which actions are within the purview of Federal agencies, to disqualify persons deemed not presently responsible to conduct business with the Federal Government.  

The “Research Misconduct Committee” (the “Committee”) is a standing committee appointed by the IO. The Research Misconduct Committee consists of an odd number of individuals with a membership of at least three, not including the RIO. The RIO serves as Chair of the Research Misconduct Committee as a non-voting member. If an Inquiry is deemed warranted following an allegation, the inquiry can be conducted by the RIO, by another designated official, or by the Research Misconduct Committee. If an investigation is deemed warranted following the inquiry, the investigation is conducted by the Research Misconduct Committee. Research Misconduct Committee members are to recuse themselves in instances of real or perceived conflicts of interest prior to an inquiry or investigation. The Research Misconduct Committee may utilize subject matter experts as needed to assist in an inquiry and/or investigation.

Evidentiary standards

1. Standard of proof.

A finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. Burden of proof.
   1. The University has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. A Respondent's destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the University or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. 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.
   2. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, all affirmative defenses raised. In determining whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or Miami University has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent.
   3. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a research misconduct proceeding.

A. PROCEDURES Institutional Assessment of Allegations 

1. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official must promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation meets the following criteria:

   1. The allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and
   2. The allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

2. If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the allegation meets these criteria, they will promptly document the assessment and initiate an inquiry, under the procedures in Section B below, and sequester all research records and other evidence. The RIO or other institutional official must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation.

3. If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will write sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by the S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity of why Miami University did not proceed to an inquiry. The RIO or other Institutional Officer shall ensure that Miami University securely retains this documentation for seven years.

B. Inquiry

An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. Miami University will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it, unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report.

Procedures of the Inquiry

1. Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

   1. Before, or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), Miami University will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years.
   2. The institution has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.
   3. At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, Miami University will make a good-faith effort to notify the presumed Respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, the institution will notify the respondent(s) in writing. In the event the alleged. Respondent is a member of a Collective Bargining Unit, the Unio will be notified. 
   4. When appropriate, the institution will give the Respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.
   5. If additional Respondents are identified, Miami University will provide written notification to the new Respondent(s). All additional Respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial Respondent. Only allegations specific to a particular Respondent will be included in the notification to that Respondent.

2. Convening the Committee and Ensuring Neutrality

   1. Miami University will ensure that all Committee members understand their commission, keep the identities of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93.
   2. In lieu of a Committee, the institution may task the RIO or another designated institutional official to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.

3. Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

   1. The Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence.
   2. In the process of the inquiry, the Committee, or the individual charged with conducting the inquiry, may interview the Respondent and/or witnesses. The Respondent shall be entitled to have a support person or a representative of their union present.
   3. Following completion of the inquiry, the Committee or the individual charged with conducting the inquiry will reach a determination whether or not an investigation is warranted in accordance with 42 CFR Part 93, set forth in Part 5 below. This is not the stage at which a determination is made whether research misconduct occurred, nor to assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.

4. Documenting the Inquiry

   1. At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will prepare a written inquiry report.
   2. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:
      1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and complainant(s).
      2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
      3. Details about the funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing sponsor support.
      4. The composition of the inquiry Committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
      6. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
      7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
      8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
      10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation. This may include documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.
      11. Any comments on the inquiry report by the Respondent or the Complainant(s).
      12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.

5. An Investigation is warranted in the event the following criteria are met:

   1. there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and 
   2. preliminary information gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance. 

6. Completing the Inquiry

   1. Miami University will give the Respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment.
   2. The institution may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a Complainant for comment.
   3. Miami University will notify the Respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the Respondent with copies of the final inquiry report, and these policies and procedures.
   4. Miami University may, but is not required to, notify a Complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If the institution provides notice to one Complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all Complainants in the case.

7. If an Investigation is Warranted:

   1. If the Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official conducting the inquiry determines that an investigation is warranted, Miami University must do the following:
      1. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the Respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and
      2. within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity with a copy of the inquiry report, if the work was supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
      3. Notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity of the decision to begin an investigation on or before the date the investigation begins, and provide the inquiry report.
   2. Miami University may choose to notify the Complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct, but is required to take the same notification action for all Complainants in cases where there is more than one Complainant.
   3. The University will initiate an Investigation, as outlined in the procedures set forth in Section C below

8. If an Investigation Is Not Warranted, the Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will ensure that Miami University keeps sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity of why the institution did not proceed to an investigation, store these records in a secure manner for at least seven years after the termination of the inquiry, and provide them to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity upon request.

C. Investigation

In the event that the University determines an Investigation is warranted, it shall follow the following Procedures.

Procedures of the Investigation

1. Time: The University shall begin the investigation within 30 days after the determination that an investigation is warranted.
2. Notice to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity: If the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the VPRI shall notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity 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 42 CFR 93.307 and 42 CFR 93.309.
3. Notice to the respondent(s): The RIO shall notify the Respondent(s) in writing of the allegation(s) within a reasonable amount of time after determining that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins.
   1. The University must give the Respondent(s) 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).
   2. If the University identifies additional Respondents during the investigation, the University may, but is not required to, conduct a separate inquiry for each new Respondent. If any additional Respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the University must notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with these procedures.
   3. While an investigation into multiple Respondents can convene with the same Committee members, separate investigation reports and research misconduct determinations are required for each Respondent.
4.  Investigation Committe: The University's Research Misconduct Committee shall be constituted to conduct the investigation.
   1. Sequestration of records: The Committee or the RIO shall obtain all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the investigation, consistent with 42 CFR 93.305(a).
   2. Documentation: The Committee shall 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).
   3. Ensuring a fair investigation: The Committee shall take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the investigation.
5. Interview Process
   1. During the investigation, the University must interview the 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
      1. Inteviews during the investigation must be recorded and tanscribed. 
      2. Any exhibits shown to an interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview. 
      3. The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction. 
      4. The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation. 
      5. The respondent must not be present during the witnesses' interviews but must be must be provided a transcript of the interview.
   2. During the investigation, the Investigation Committee is charged with ensuring they 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. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.
6. Multiple institutions: Any investigation involving research misconduct implicating multiple institutions must be conducted consistent with 42 CFR 93.305(e).
7. Time limit for completing the investigation: The Committee must complete all aspects of an investigation within 180 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the draft report for each Respondent, providing the draft report to each Respondent for comment in accordance with 42 CFR 93.312.
8. Extension of Time Limit: If the Committee is unable to complete the investigation in 180 days, the University must submit a request to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity for extension of time, in writing, which shall include the circumstances or issues warranting additional time. In the even the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity grants an extension, it may direct the University to file periodic progress reports. 
9. Investigation Report. Within 180 days from the initiation of the Investigation, the Committee shall complete an Investigation Report. If the investigation takes longer than 180 days to complete, the investigation report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.
   1. A final investigation report for each Respondent must be in writing and include:
      1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
      2. Decription and documentation of Public Health support (where applicable), including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing Public Health Services support. 
      3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the Respondent.
      4. Composition of investigation Committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution 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.
      6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted, as described in 42 CFR 93.310(g).
      7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), Public Health Services funding applications (if applicable), progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
      8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      9. If not already provided to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity, the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
      10. Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant on the draft investigation report and the investigation Committee's consideration of those comments.
      11. A statement for each seperate allegation of whether the investigation COmmittee recommends a finding of research misconduct. 

          1. If the investigation Committee 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 42 CFR 93.103, have been met.

             5. Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent.

             6. Identify the specific Public Health Services support where applicable.

             7. Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction. 

      12. If the investigation Committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must provide a detailed rationale.
      13. List of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with Public Health Services and non-Public Health Services Federal agencies.

          1. The University must give the Respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation Committee considered or relied on. The Respondent must submit any comments on the draft report to the institution within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report.

          2. The University may provide the Complainant a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of that report. The comments of the Complainant, if any, must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the Complainant received the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it.

10. Completion of Investigation. The University is expected to carry inquiries and investigations through to completion and to pursue diligently all significant issues and credible allegations of research misconduct. Institutions must notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity in advance if the institution 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.

11. Respondent Admission. In the event a Respondent admits to research misconduct during the course of an investigation (or inquiry or assessment phase), 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 statement must meet all elements required for a research misconduct finding under 42 CFR 93.103 and, if the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, must be provided to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity before the institution closes its research misconduct proceeding.
    
    The institution must also provide a statement to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity describing how it determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the Respondent's culpability.

D. Decision by the Institutional Deciding Official

1. Following the completion of an Investigation, the draft report and any comments submitted by the Respondent and Complainant shall be submitted to the Deciding Official for review and a final decision. The Deciding Official is the individual responsible for making a final determination of research misconduct findings. This determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:

   1. Whether the University substantiated the allegation of research misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence, and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
   2. A description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.

2. The administrative actions to be taken by the University may include the following:

   1. Withdrawl or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found;
   2. Removal of the responsible person from the tainted project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, or a revocation, for a specified period, of the responsible person’s ability to be involved in sponsored research;
   3. Restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate; and/or
   4. Other action appropriate to the misconduct, up to and including unpaid suspension or termination.

   If the Respondent is a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, the provisions of the CBA Article on “Discipline & Discharge” will apply if either unpaid suspension or termination is identified as a sanction.

3. In the event that there is no determination of research misconduct, the University must 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 whom no finding of research misconduct is made.

E. Appeal

Any person aggrieved by any action proposed as a result of an inquiry conducted pursuant to this policy shall have the right of appeal to the Deciding Official, in writing, within 30 calendar days of notification. Any person aggrieved by any action proposed as a result of an investigation conducted pursuant to this policy shall have the right of appeal to the President, in writing, within 30 calendar days of notification. All appeal procedures must be completed within 120 calendar days of the filing of the appeal.

F. Institutional Requirements

1. If a Respondent appeals an institution's finding(s) of research misconduct or institutional actions and the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the institution must promptly notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity.

2. If the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and if the institution has not transmitted its institutional record to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity in accordance with 42 CFR 93.316 prior to the appeal, the institution must wait until the appeal is concluded to transmit its institutional record. The institution must ensure that the complete record of the appeal is included in the institutional record consistent with 42 CFR 93.220(a)(5).

3. If the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and if the institution has transmitted its institutional record to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity in accordance with 42 CFR 93.316 prior to the appeal, the institution must provide the U.S. Department of Services Office of Research Integrity a complete record of the appeal once the appeal is concluded.

4. After the Institutional Deciding Official has made a final determination of research misconduct findings in accordance with 42 CFR 93.314, the institution must transmit the institutional record to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity if the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The institutional record must be consistent with 42 CFR 93.220 and logically organized.

5. If the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Miami 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 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation under 42 CFR subpart D and 42 CFR subpart E, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under 42 CFR 93.318(b) or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity advises otherwise in writing.

6. If the work was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on request, institutions must transfer custody, or provide copies, to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity to conduct its oversight review, develop the administrative record, or present the administrative record in any proceeding under 42 CFR subpart D and 42 CFR subpart E.

Confidentiality

• Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by the institution, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. This limitation on disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses no longer applies once an institution has made a final determination of research misconduct findings. The institution, however, must disclose the identity of Respondents, Complainants, or other relevant persons to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity pursuant to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity review of research misconduct proceedings under this part.
• 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.
• This section does not prohibit Miami University from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable.

• Nothing in this section shall prevent Miami from fully complying with the Ohio Public Records Act.  ubpart D and 42 CFR subpart E. 

Institutional policies and procedures

This policy shall at all times be interpreted consistent with all applicable requirements pertaining to institutional responsibilities included in 42 CFR 93. In the event any provision of this policy is inconsistent with 42 CFR 93, then all parties are expected to comply with the provisions of 42 CFR 93.

---

Related Form(s)

Not applicable.

Additional Resources and Procedures

Not applicable.

FAQ

Not applicable.

Policy Administration

Next Review Date

7/1/2026

Responsible Officers

1. 1. 1. 1. • Vice President for Research and Innovation
            • Office of the Provost

Legal Reference

1. 1. 1. 1. • 42 CFR 93
            • ORC 3345.14
            • America COMPETES Act
            • National Science Foundation Research Misconduct Policies
            • Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct

Compliance Policy

No

Recent Revision History

Edited December 2025

Reference ID(s)

1. 1. 1. 1. • MUPIM 15.9
            • OAC 3339-15-09

Reviewers

1. 1. • University Senate
      • Vice President for Research and Innovation
      • Office of the Provost