<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Process Institutions have the responsibility of dealing with allegations of research misconduct in a two-step process. In the inquiry stage the facts are gathered to the extent necessary to determine whether a full-fledged investigation is necessary. The parallel legal step is an indictment by a Grand Jury. In research misconduct, a positive report of an inquiry results in an investigation, comparable to a trial, carried out by an appointed committee. This is a quasi-legal activity, with lawyers present, disclosure rules, requirements for detailed record keeping and a requirement for decisions of guilt or innocence regarding each allegation. At the initiation of an investigation, the Office of Research Integrity must be notified. The ORI can be helpful in advising the institution so that the investigation will be carried out with precise adherence to the rules. The results of the investigation are reported to the institutional leadership and to the ORI. If a finding of research misconduct is made, (see above for definitions), then the institution and funding agency determine the appropriate sanctions. The ORI has the authority to review research misconduct investigations as well as the primary data and to suggest a government investigation if warranted. Sometimes the complainant (the whistleblower) or the respondent (the accused) is not satisfied with the results of the investigation. They can appeal to the ORI in writing and if deemed warranted, the case can be presented to an administrative law judge for final adjudication. This is a big change in response to great criticism of the appeals carried out by the ORI directly. << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Chapter 8 Quick Links Malfeasance and Misconduct Definitions Process Whistleblowing Litigation, the New Approach to Research Management The Importance of Trust Cases Bibliography Chapter 8 Download (PDF)