Research Misconduct

JHU Policy Statement
As an institution committed to the creation of new knowledge through research, The Johns Hopkins University (“University” or “JHU”) seeks to ensure integrity in the design, conduct and reporting of research results. Misconduct in research endangers public trust and the pursuit of scientific truth, and the University has an obligation to deal promptly with allegations or evidence of research misconduct. These procedures provide a fair and orderly means of handling allegations or suspicions of research misconduct,
in compliance with applicable federal regulations for research institutions. The University Research Integrity Policy (“Policy”) applies to all University faculty, trainees, students and staff engaged in the proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting of research, regardless of funding source.

This Policy does not apply to allegations or complaints that do not fall within the definition of research misconduct set forth below or to matters that fall exclusively under other policies, including violations of conflict of interest policies, violations of Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee policies, or violations of fiscal or other University policies, which shall be directed to the offices responsible for such matters. Where an allegation includes matters that may be partly within the scope of this Policy and also within the scope of another policy, the Research Integrity Officer shall coordinate as necessary with other offices.

It is not intended that proceedings under this Policy be adversarial. Rather, all phases of the procedure should be conducted in the spirit of peer review. As a peer review activity, committees of the faculty should be free to meet directly with a member of the academic community regarding matters raised under this Policy, without legal counsel present. No Complainant, Respondent or witness may appear before these internal review committees with legal counsel.

Purpose
This Policy sets forth the policies and procedures to be followed in reporting, assessing, inquiring into, and investigating allegations of research misconduct. This Policy is intended to comply with the regulatory requirements of federal funding agencies related to research misconduct.

Definitions	Allegation A disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication directly to a Deciding Official or the Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”) or to the Deciding Official or RIO via other University or School officials. Complainant A person who makes a good faith allegation of research misconduct. Deciding Official Under this Policy, the deciding official is the Dean (or the Dean’s designee) of the school in which the Respondent has his or her primary appointment or employment. Where an allegation is brought that involves a Deciding Official as a potential Respondent or witness, the RIO shall consult with the Provost, who shall appoint a non-conflicted Deciding Official for such matter. Evidence Any document or data in any medium (including but not limited to electronic and digital files), tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. The destruction, absence of, or Respondent’s failure to provide Research Records accurately documenting the questioned research may constitute evidence of research misconduct. Fabrication Making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification 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. Good Faith 1. With respect to a Complainant or witness, having a belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant’s or witness’ position could have, based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An allegation of research misconduct or testimony in a research misconduct investigation is not considered to be provided in good faith if it is made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would disprove the allegation or testimony; and 2. With respect to a committee member, carrying out the duties assigned in an honest and impartial manner, free of influence from personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest which may compromise, or appear to compromise, the committee member’s objectivity. Plagiarism The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism does not include authorship disputes. Preponderance of the Evidence Proof by information, compared with that opposing it, that a matter at issue is more probably true than not. Research A systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) in all fields. Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”) The person appointed by the Provost who has primary responsibility for implementing this Policy. The RIO may delegate certain duties to School RIOs appointed by the Deciding Official for the relevant School. In such cases, references to RIO in this Policy shall include the School RIO. The RIO shall serve as a non-voting, ex officio member solely to provide procedural guidance to Inquiry and Investigation committees. The RIO shall 1) receive allegations, 2) conduct (in coordination with the Deciding Official) assessments of allegations, 3) ensure that potential evidence of research misconduct is collected and sequestered in a timely manner, 4) ensure that regulatory requirements and timelines are met, 5) ensure that decisions made under this Policy are appropriately documented, 6) maintain confidentiality during the pendency of assessments, inquiries and investigations, and 7) complete all regulatory recordkeeping and reporting obligations set forth in this Policy and applicable federal regulations. Research Misconduct Falsification, fabrication or plagiarism in the proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting of research. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Each of the following must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding of research misconduct: a. There has been a significant departure from the accepted practices of the scientific community; and b. The misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Research Record The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific and other forms of inquiry, including but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records (physical or electronic), physical samples, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and correspondence that transmits data or results. Respondent The person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is made.
Resources	Full policy can be found here: https://www.jhu.edu/assets/uploads/2017/08/university_research_integrity_policy.pdf
Contacts	BSPH Research Integrity Officer: Currently Vacant
Related Links	Plagiarism Checking Software

We are always working to provide our faculty with current precise content. If you have brief suggestions to help us improve this page please comment below. For more extensive modifications please connect with us at BSPH.research@jhu.edu.

Research Misconduct

0 Comments