“Scholarly research . . . among both faculty and students” is “essential” and “encouraged” at BYU (BYU Mission Statement). BYU seeks to foster an innovative environment for faculty and students that promotes responsible scholarly and scientific research. To ensure the integrity of research associated with the university, BYU addresses all allegations of possible research misconduct. This policy identifies the administrative processes for responding to alleged scholarly or scientific research misconduct in government-funded projects. This policy also guides, as applicable, research misconduct allegation proceedings in non-government-funded projects.

Academic Vice President (AVP) means the BYU official who makes final determinations on allegations of Research Misconduct and any resulting actions taken by the institution.

Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of Research Misconduct

• appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct;
• appears to involve government-funded research, including Public Health Services (PHS)-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and
• is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

Associate Academic Vice President – Research (AAVP-R) means the BYU official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of Research Misconduct in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Part 93.

Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

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

Inquiry means a preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding process.

Institutional Record means the records that were compiled or generated during a Research Misconduct proceeding, except the records that were not considered or relied on. The Institutional Record includes documentation of the Assessment; the Inquiry Report, if an Inquiry is conducted, and all records considered or relied on during the Inquiry; the Investigation report, if an Investigation is conducted, and all records considered or relied on during the Investigation; and the written decision regarding Research Misconduct.

Investigating Officer means the individual responsible for conducting an Inquiry or Investigation into possible Research Misconduct.

Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record to reach a decision regarding a finding of Research Misconduct.

Plagiarism means appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work materially misleading readers regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or near identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. 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.

Recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.

Reporter means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of Research Misconduct.

Research Misconduct means 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.

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Reporter, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to a good faith allegation of Research Misconduct or good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding.

Scholarly research and creative work are integral to the mission of Brigham Young University. Research at BYU serves multiple purposes: it directly benefits the participating students, improves teaching and learning, and can support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its worldwide work. To fulfill these and other important objectives, research at BYU must be conducted with the highest levels of integrity and in a manner consistent with the character and commitments of disciples of Jesus Christ. Researchers are expected to uphold the standards of the Church Educational System Honor Code and the Academic Honesty Policy. Responsible conduct of research includes accurate representation of data and findings; proper acknowledgement of the contributions and ideas of others; careful stewardship of resources; respect for human and animal subjects; and transparency in methods, results, and potential conflicts of interest. Thus, responsible conduct of research at BYU ensures that scholarly work meets disciplinary standards of excellence as well as the university’s commitments to integrity and discipleship of Jesus Christ.

If conduct is alleged to fall short of the expectations of responsible conduct of research, the university addresses the concerns through its established Research Misconduct proceedings. At all times, Research Misconduct proceedings are conducted in accordance with the following standards.

Confidentiality

Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Reporters, and witnesses during Research Misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know as determined by the Investigating Officer, as necessary to conduct a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct proceeding. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. The limitation on the disclosure of Respondents, Reporters, and witnesses no longer applies after a final determination of Research Misconduct. The Investigating Officer discloses the identity of Respondents, Reporters, and witnesses to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as requested.

Except as may be otherwise prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects may be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who need to know to carry out a Research Misconduct proceeding. The university may, however, acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations

Respondents and other parties are expected to cooperate with Assessments, Inquiries, and Investigations into possible Research Misconduct by providing information, research records, and relevant evidence when requested.

Objectivity

The university’s response into allegations of Research Misconduct is conducted thoroughly, competently, fairly, and objectively. Individuals who investigate and who render decisions regarding allegations of Research Misconduct must not have any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the proceeding.

Cooperation with Federal Agencies

The university cooperates with federal agencies having oversight authority into allegations of Research Misconduct and modifies the administrative processes of this policy at the direction of a federal agency with jurisdiction over the allegation of Research Misconduct.

At any time during a Research Misconduct proceeding, the AVP must notify ORI immediately if the AVP has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exists:

• Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects
• HHS resources or interests are threatened
• Research activities should be suspended
• There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law
• Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct proceeding
• HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved

If an allegation of Research Misconduct involves research funded by a federal agency and the funding agency requires written notice at various points in the proceeding, the AVP, in consultation with the AAVP-R, provides required notices to federal agencies. The Office of General Counsel provides guidance on reporting requirements for allegations of Research Misconduct involving federal funds.

Prohibition on Retaliation

Retaliation against a Reporter is prohibited. Retaliation is also prohibited against individuals participating in a Research Misconduct proceeding. Those responsible for responding to allegations of Research Misconduct must take reasonable steps to protect the positions and reputations of Reporters, witnesses, and other individuals from retaliatory actions.

Standard of Proof

A finding of Research Misconduct requires that

• there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;
• the misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or Recklessly; and
• the allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

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 if 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. 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.

Multiple Institutions

When allegations involve research conducted at multiple institutions, one institution is designated as the lead institution if a joint Research Misconduct proceeding is conducted. The lead institution obtains research records and other evidence pertinent to a proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint Research Misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further Inquiry or Investigation is warranted, whether Research Misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

Admission by Respondent

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. An admission must identify the significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community and whether the Misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or Recklessly.

The AVP provides the Respondent’s admission to ORI before closing a Research Misconduct proceeding along with a statement to ORI describing how the scope of the Misconduct was fully addressed and how the Respondent’s culpability was confirmed.

Time Limitation

BYU investigates all allegations of Research Misconduct for alleged misconduct that occurred within six years of the date of the allegation. The six-year limitation period is measured from the date the alleged misconduct occurred, not from when it was reported. The six-year limitation does not apply in the following instances:

• the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged Research Misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion of the research record; or
• the Respondent uses, republishes, or cites to the portion of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized in submitted or published manuscripts, submitted government grant applications, progress reports submitted to government funding agencies or divisions, posters, presentation or other research records within six years of when the allegations were received. If it appears that research falls under this exception, then the institution must document its determination and retain the documentation.

A Research Misconduct proceeding begins when the AAVP-R receives a report of possible Research Misconduct via any means, including email, the Compliance Hotline, telephone, in-person communication, or from the ORI or any of the offices or agencies comprising the Public Health Service (PHS). In compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, the AAVP-R coordinates an objective and fair procedure to address the concern, as detailed below.

Sequestration of Research Records

After receiving an allegation of possible Research Misconduct, the Investigating Officer

• takes 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 proceedings;
• inventories the research records and other evidence; and
• sequesters the research records in a secure manner.

When research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the Investigating Officer may obtain copies of the data or other evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value.

Whenever possible, the Investigating Officer obtains the research records before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the allegation and whenever additional items become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation. Where appropriate, the Investigating Officer gives the Respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered research records.

Assessment into Research Misconduct Allegations

The purpose of an Assessment is to determine whether an allegation of Research Misconduct warrants an Inquiry. Upon receiving an allegation of Research Misconduct, the AAVP-R promptly assesses the allegation to determine whether the allegation

• falls within the definition of Research Misconduct;
• is within the applicability criteria of 42 C.F.R. §102 or otherwise is government funded; and
• is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

The AAVP-R determines if the allegation meets these criteria. If the allegation meets these criteria, an Inquiry must be conducted. If the requirements for an Inquiry are met, the AAVP-R documents the Assessment, and the Investigating Officer promptly sequesters the applicable research records and other evidence and initiates the Inquiry.

If the AAVP-R determines that requirements for an Inquiry are not met, AAVP-R must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review by the Office of Research Integrity or other agency with oversight responsibility of the reasons why an Inquiry was not conducted.

The purpose of an Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an Investigation. As a result, an Inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.

Notice of Inquiry

At the time of or before beginning an Inquiry, the Investigating Officer makes a good faith effort to notify the presumed Respondent in writing of the allegations and the initiation of the Inquiry. The Investigating Officer also notifies any additional Respondents identified during the Inquiry. Only allegations specific to a particular Respondent are included in the notice to that Respondent. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent must be notified in writing of the additional allegations.

If the Investigating Officer identifies additional Respondents during an Inquiry or Investigation, the university does not conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent. However, each additional Respondent is provided notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Research Records and Evidence

The Investigating Officer obtains all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding and sequesters the records and evidence in a secure manner. The Investigating Officer makes reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional relevant research records or evidence discovered during the Inquiry. The Investigating Officer also identifies any records that have been destroyed pursuant to applicable university retention schedules and are unavailable for purposes of the Inquiry.

When research records or evidence encompass data or materials shared by multiple users, the Investigating Officer may take copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies have the equivalent evidentiary value as the originals. As appropriate, the Investigating Officer gives the Respondent copies of—or reasonable, supervised access to—the research records. A finding of Research Misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged Misconduct is intentional, knowing, or Reckless, is not made at the Inquiry stage.

Interviews

The Investigating Officer may interview witnesses or Respondents who would provide additional information for the Inquiry and may use one or more subject matter experts to assist in the Inquiry.

Inquiry Report

At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Investigating Officer prepares a written report. The report includes the following information:

• the names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and Complainant
• a description of the Research Misconduct allegations
• the composition of the Inquiry committee, if used, including names, positions, and subject matter expertise
• inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted
• transcripts of any transcribed interviews
• timeline and procedural history
• any scientific or forensic analyses conducted
• the basis for recommending that the allegations warrant an Investigation
• the basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit an Investigation
• information regarding government funding, if any, including grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing funding agency support
• results of the Inquiry, including a review of the evidence that provides the basis for recommending or not recommending that the alleged actions warrant an Investigation
• any comments on the Inquiry report by the Respondent or the Reporter
• any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies
• potential evidence of honest error or differences of opinion

The Investigating Officer provides the Respondent with an opportunity to review and comment on the Inquiry report after it has been completed and attaches any comments received from the Respondent to the report. Comments from the Respondent, if applicable, must be submitted within 10 calendar days from the date the Inquiry Report is emailed to Respondent. The Investigating Officer may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a Reporter for comment.

Timeline for Completing an Inquiry

An Inquiry into a Research Misconduct allegation must be completed within 90 calendar days of its start unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the Inquiry takes longer than 90 calendar days to complete, the Inquiry Report must document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.

Notice of Results of the Inquiry

After submitting the Inquiry report to the AVP and AAVP-R, the Investigating Officer notifies the Respondent in writing whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. The notice must include a copy of the Inquiry report, a copy of any applicable government rules, and this policy.

The AVP may, but is not required to, notify a Reporter whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. If the AVP provides notice to one Reporter in a case, a notice is provided to all Reporters to the extent possible.

An Investigation is warranted if

• there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct;
• the research involves government-funded research, including PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in 42 C.F.R. 93.102; and
• preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.

The AVP, in consultation with the AAVP-R, determines if an Investigation is warranted. Within 30 days of determining that an Investigation is warranted, the AVP provides a copy of the Inquiry Report to ORI and provides notice to ORI that an Investigation is warranted.

Timeline for Initiating an Investigation

An Investigating Officer begins an Investigation within 30 calendar days after the AVP determines that an Investigation is warranted.

Notice of Investigation

The Investigating Officer notifies the Respondent in writing of the allegations of Research Misconduct within a reasonable amount of time after the AVP has determined that an Investigation is warranted but before the Investigation begins. The Investigating Officer gives the Respondent written notice of any new allegations of Research Misconduct within a reasonable amount of time after deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the Inquiry or in the initial notice of Investigation.

If the Investigating Officer identifies additional Respondents during an Investigation, the Officer may, but is not required to, conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent. If any additional Respondents are identified during the Investigation, the Investigating Officer informs them of the allegations and provides them an opportunity to respond. Separate Investigation reports and Research Misconduct determinations are required for each Respondent.

Research Records and Evidence

To the extent it has not been done at the Inquiry stage, the Investigating Officer takes reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the Investigation. The Investigating Officer inventories the records and evidence and stores them securely. The Investigating Officer also makes reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional relevant research records or evidence discovered during the Investigation.

When research records or evidence encompass data or materials shared by multiple users, the Investigating Officer may take copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies have the equivalent evidentiary value as the originals. When appropriate, the Investigating Officer gives the Respondent copies of—or reasonable, supervised access to—the research records.

Whenever possible, the Investigating Officer must take custody of the records before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the Investigation or whenever additional records become known or relevant to the Investigation.

Investigation Process

The Investigating Officer takes reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased Investigation occurs, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the Investigation.

Interviews

The Investigating Officer, or his or her designee, interviews each Respondent, Reporter, 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. Interviews must be recorded and transcribed. Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview. The transcript of the interview must be made available to the interviewee for correction. The transcript with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the record of the Investigation. The Respondent must not be present during witness interviews but must be provided a transcript of the Interviews thereafter. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

The Investigating Officer, or his or her designee, diligently pursues all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the Investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continues the Investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

Draft Investigation Report

The Investigating Officer 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 on which the report is based. The Respondent’s subsequent comments regarding the draft report, if any, must be submitted to the Investigating Officer in writing within 30 calendar days of the date on which the Respondent receives the draft Investigation report. The Investigating Officer may also provide the Reporter a copy of the draft Investigation report or relevant portions of that report. The comments of the Reporter, if any, must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the date on which the Reporter receives the draft Investigation report or relevant portions of it.

Final Investigation Report

The final Investigation report must be written and include the following:

• a description of the nature of the Research Misconduct allegations, including any additional allegations addressed during the Research Misconduct proceeding
• a description of the specific allegations of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation of the Respondent
• the composition of the investigative committee, if any, including the name, positions, and subject matter expertise
• information on financial support, if any, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing financial support
• policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted
• an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records that the Investigator did not consider or rely on; and a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the Investigation. The inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the Investigation.
• transcripts of all interviews conducted
• identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication, funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contain falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material
• any scientific or forensic analyses conducted
• a statement for each separate allegation of whether the Investigating Officer recommends a finding of Research Misconduct. If the Investigating Officer recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an allegation, the Investigation report must, for that allegation
  • identify the individual who committed the Research Misconduct
  • indicate whether the Research Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism
  • indicate whether the Research Misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or Recklessly
  • state whether the other requirements for a finding of Research Misconduct have been met
  • summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent
  • identify whether any publications need correction or retraction
  • identify any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with government agencies
• any comments made by the Respondent and Reporter on the draft Investigation report and the Investigating Officer’s consideration of those comments
• a list of any current support of known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending

If the Investigating Officer does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an allegation, the Investigation report must provide a detailed rationale and provide a list of any current support or known applications for support that the Respondent has pending.

The Investigating Officer provides the final Investigation report to the Respondent, AVP, AAVP-R, dean, chair, university attorney representing the Respondent’s unit, and

• Faculty Relations (for a faculty Respondent), or
• Employee Relations (for a staff Respondent).

The Investigating Officer may provide the Investigation report to the Reporter.

Timeline for Completing Investigation

An Investigation into possible Research Misconduct must be completed within 180 calendar days from its start. This period includes conducting the Investigation, preparing the report of findings, and providing the draft report for comment. If the Investigating Officer is unable to complete the Investigation in 180 days, the AAVP-R asks ORI in writing for an extension of time that includes the circumstances or issues warranting additional time. If the Investigation report takes longer than the 180 days to complete, the Report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.

Resolution

Except for research funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the AVP, in consultation with the AAVP-R, reviews the final Investigation report and investigative record and makes a final determination of Research Misconduct findings. The determination must be provided in a written determination that includes whether the university found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the Research Misconduct; and a description of the institutional actions taken or to be taken.

After a final determination of Research Misconduct has been made, the AVP transmits the Institutional Record to ORI or other funding agencies. For research funded by DOE, the AVP, in consultation with the AAVP-R:

• reviews the final Investigation report and investigative record (including recommended actions);
• determines the appropriate corrective actions and sanctions, if any;
• keeps the DOE Contracting Officer informed of the results of the Investigation and any subsequent adjudication; and
• forwards to the Contracting Officer a copy of the evidentiary record, the investigation report, any recommendations made to the AVP, the Respondent’s written response to the recommendation (if any), and the AVP’s decision and notification of any corrective action taken or planned.

If a Respondent wishes to appeal a finding of Research Misconduct, the Respondent must appeal within 30 calendar days of receipt of the finding. The AVP promptly notifies ORI of a timely appeal and follows the Faculty Grievance Policy. If the AVP has not transmitted the Institutional Record to ORI prior to the appeal, the AVP transmits the Institutional Record and the complete record of the appeal to ORI at the completion of the appeal. If the AVP transmits the Institutional Record to ORI prior to an appeal, the AVP provides ORI a complete record of the appeal after the appeal is concluded.

The Investigating Officer sends the Institutional Record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects, regardless of whether the evidence is part of the Institutional Record to University Records and Information Management at the conclusion of the Research Misconduct proceeding. In addition, a single index should be provided listing all the research records and evidence compiled during the Research Misconduct proceeding, except records that were not considered or relied on.

University Records and Information Management maintains documents regarding a Research Misconduct proceeding for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding, whichever is later, unless the records have been transferred to HHS or ORI provides otherwise in writing. The Investigating Officer provides Research Misconduct records to HHS as requested.