Proposed Text |
Current Text |
| The identity of respondents and complainants shall be limited to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair misconduct proceeding. Except as otherwise prescribed by law[1], the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified shall be limited to those who need to know in order to carry out a misconduct proceeding. Written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms may be used to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information. |
All individuals who are involved in the complaint reporting and/or investigation process are obliged to maintain confidentiality of the proceedings. Throughout the Inquiry and Investigation of alleged academic misconduct, those conducting the reviews shall take all reasonable precautions, consistent with the need for a complete and comprehensive review, to maintain confidentiality and to protect the rights and legitimate interests of both the person making the disclosure and the subject(s) of the review. After the Investigation (or Inquiry, in the case where the Inquirer determines that no Investigation is warranted) has concluded, the Inquirer in concurrence with the Vice Provost for Research may publicly release information regarding the findings of the Investigation if warranted by the circumstances. The Dean or unit head will undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations of scientific misconduct. When the allegations are not confirmed by the Investigation, or when the Inquirer determines that an Investigation is not warranted, the Dean or unit head will also undertake diligent efforts to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct. |
| Protecting complainants, witnesses, and committee members. Any form of retaliation against complainants, witnesses, or committee members is strictly prohibited. All covered individuals should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation against complainants, witnesses or committee members to the RIO, who shall review the matter and, as necessary, make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual retaliation and protect and restore the position and reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is directed. | |
| Protecting the Respondent. Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that affords fair treatment to the Respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or a thorough and compliant inquiry or investigation. The RIO is responsible for ensuring that the notices and opportunities provided for in this policy, and when relevant, appropriate federal regulations, are provided to respondents. Respondents accused of misconduct may consult with legal counsel or another adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel or adviser to interviews or meetings on the case. The respondent shall be given the opportunity to admit that misconduct occurred and that they committed the research misconduct. With the advice of the RIO and University General Counsel, the DO may terminate or truncate the Institution’s review of an allegation if the respondent admits the misconduct or if a settlement has been reached or for any other reason. When appropriate, the Institution will, pursuant to relevant federal regulations, inform ORI of its termination of review. Finally, as requested, and as appropriate, the RIO and other institutional officials shall make reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct, but against whom no finding of misconduct is made. |
