CHAPTER 200 Academic Affairs

Print This Policy

260 Research and Economic Development

The Office of Research and Economic Development provides leadership and support to Cal Poly faculty and students in their pursuit of excellence in their research and creative efforts. Research and Economic Development proactively strives to foster an environment in which the research and creative accomplishments of faculty and students are encouraged and rewarded.

The Office identifies and creates opportunities for financial support of these activities; advocates for Cal Poly's research activities, both on campus and at the local, state and national levels; and promotes the reputation of Cal Poly's research and scholarship locally, nationally and internationally. To achieve these ends the Office of Research and Economic Development, and its constituent Grants Development Office, collaborate with students, faculty, staff and administrators in programs, departments, colleges and administrative units of the University, with the Cal Poly Corporation, and with various private and governmental organizations.

261 Research

The research activities of the University are encouraged and guided by the University administration, in general, and in particular, by the academic deans and the vice president for Research and Economic Development. “Research” encompasses a variety of scholarly and creative activities, including basic and applied research, community outreach and demonstration projects, student research projects, and projects in the humanities and creative arts. While the teaching mission of the University is primary, research and professional development are recognized as essential functions of the faculty and key to maintaining the excellence of the teaching programs. In turn, the University is committed to providing the necessary environment to foster research and other professional development activities.

261.1 Compliance

Research activities at the University must comply with a variety of federal, state, CSU and University regulations. Several different policies, described in this section, address research compliance matters.

261.1.1 Policy for Use of Human Subjects in Research

Introduction

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, (hereafter, Cal Poly) is committed to the protection of human subjects in research and, as such, is guided by the principles set forth in the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (The Belmont Report), and is obligated by the policies of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Code of Federal Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46)..” The actions of Cal Poly also will conform to all other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the conduct of research with human subjects.

To assist with this goal, the University has designated a committee, or Institutional Review Board (IRB), to review proposals for research involving human subjects and to evaluate both risk and protection against risk for those subjects, the researchers, and Cal Poly. It is the function of the IRB to:

evaluate research in terms of its compliance with ethical standards and the regulations set forth in the Federal Regulations regarding the health, welfare, safety, rights, and privileges of subjects; and
assist the investigator(s) in complying with federal, state, and local regulations, including Cal Poly policies governing research.

While individual researchers are ultimately responsible for their practices, the IRB's review is designed to provide objective input as an additional protection for the subjects. In addition, the independent review by the IRB is of benefit to those who could be held accountable for the research practices — the researchers and the University — and will seek to evaluate and minimize the potential risks for all.

261.1.1.1 Applicability of this Policy

All institutions at which research involving human subjects is carried out are required by law to have an IRB to oversee those projects when the research is supported by a federal agency. Even if the research is not federally funded, however, it is Cal Poly's policy that a review of compliance with ethical guidelines be completed on all research involving human subjects conducted at Cal Poly, including, but not limited to, research:

conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent of Cal Poly (including students) in connection with his/her institutional responsibilities;
conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent of Cal Poly using any property or facility of Cal Poly; or
involving the use of Cal Poly’s non-public information to identify or contact human subjects.

These categories encompass reviews of all off-campus research on human subjects carried out by Cal Poly faculty, staff, and students when they are conducting the research as an aspect of their roles as faculty, staff, or students of the University; and, also research conducted by external investigators at Cal Poly using faculty, staff, or students as subjects. Approval from another IRB (e.g., external research partner) does not automatically serve in lieu of review by the Cal Poly IRB under the requirements of this policy; and, review of federally funded cooperative or multi-site research conducted in the United States will comply with 45 CFR 46.114 and NIH policy NOT-OD-16-094. The IRB is not responsible for reviewing research on human subjects that is conducted by a University employee or student as a function of their independent consulting work or their personal work with another institution.

261.1.1.2 Definitions

In accordance with federal guidelines for the protection of human subjects, research involving human subjects means any systematic investigation of human subjects, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research: 1) obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or 2) obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.

Systematic investigation is defined as an attempt to answer research questions using a methodological approach, incorporating data collection (both quantitative and qualitative) and data analysis, and permitting conclusions to be drawn.

Contributing to generalizable knowledge is defined as the dissemination and application of research findings to populations outside of the specific study population.

Human subjects research that requires review by the Cal Poly IRB includes, but is not limited to, faculty research, master's theses, and senior projects as well as research involving human subjects that is conducted on campus by parties not directly affiliated with the University. While the ethical principles for research are often applicable to classroom activities, demonstrations, and assignments, the IRB does not review classroom activities unless data will be collected and used in a systematic investigation that contributes to generalizable knowledge.

261.1.1.3 Overview of the Ethical Principles

Cal Poly's ethical guidelines for the use of human subjects in research are based on the principles and procedures outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects and the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) Policy and Guidance. The OHRP Policy and Guidance provides interpretation and discussion of the Federal Regulations related to the protection of human subjects. Cal Poly's policy is intended to apply to the range of disciplines represented on campus while at the same time acknowledging the value of the ethical guidelines of individual disciplines' professional associations (e.g., the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Sports Medicine, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities). Should a specific circumstance not be fully addressed by the Cal Poly policy, the Federal Regulations and the OHRP Policy and Guidance will provide the guidelines for the IRB's decision-making. The Federal Regulations will be the primary reference for the review of federally funded research.

The Federal Regulations and Cal Poly's guidelines draw heavily on the three basic ethical principles laid out in the Belmont Report, a 1979 report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. These three basic principles are: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Respect for persons entails treating individuals as autonomous agents who enter into research voluntarily and with adequate information (i.e., informed consent). Those with diminished autonomy, such as human fetuses (pregnant women), neonates, children, prisoners, and individuals who are in some way incapacitated, have a right to be protected. The second basic principle, beneficence, refers to the obligation to secure the well-being of research subjects. Possible benefits should be maximized, while possible harms should be minimized. The final principle explicated in the Belmont Report is that of justice. Justice implies that both risks and benefits of research should be distributed equally across various groups. For example, the burden of serving in research should not largely fall on certain groups such as the poor or the imprisoned, while others primarily benefit from the knowledge gained from the research.

The specific ethical criteria used to evaluate research proposals are provided in the Cal Poly Procedures and Guidelines for Human Subjects Research.

261.1.1.4 Authority and Assurance of Compliance

At the delegation of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Research and Economic Development at Cal Poly has designated the Dean of Research as the responsible Institutional Official (IO) for oversight of the university’s human research protections program. Cal Poly holds a Federalwide Assurance (FWA), FWA00000342, which is granted to IRBs that register with the OHRP.

261.1.1.5 IRB Membership

The Cal Poly IRB, has been established in accordance with the requirements of the current Federal Regulations, under 45 CFR 46.107.

In keeping with the Federal Regulations, the Cal Poly IRB must:

have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted under the authority of the Cal Poly IRB. The IRB shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members, and the diversity of the members, including consideration of race, gender, and cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. In addition to possessing the professional competence necessary to review specific research activities, the IRB shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The IRB shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas. Since the IRB may review research that involves vulnerable categories of subjects (such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons) consideration shall be given to the inclusion of one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with these subjects.
employ nondiscriminatory selection in compliance with CSU Executive Order 1097, and all other applicable laws of non-discrimination.
include at least one member who is qualified as a scientist and one member who is qualified as a non-scientist. A non-scientist member is required for quorum at all meetings convened with the full IRB.
4. include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
5. ensure that no members will participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.

The IRB may at its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of issues which require expertise beyond or in addition to that available in the IRB membership. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.

Other considerations: The IRB can have as many members as necessary for it to perform its duties effectively. The appointing authority should ensure that it does not become so large that its management becomes cumbersome.

The non-affiliated member(s) of the IRB shall be from the local community-at-large. The person(s) selected should be knowledgeable about the local community and be willing to discuss issues and research from that perspective. Consideration should be given to the type of community from which the institution will draw its research subjects. The nonaffiliated member(s) should not be vulnerable to intimidation by the professionals on the IRB, and their services should be fully utilized by the IRB.

The chair of the IRB should be a highly respected individual from within the institution, fully capable of managing the IRB and the matters brought before it with fairness and impartiality. The task of making the IRB a respected part of the institutional community falls primarily on the shoulders of this individual. The IRB must be and must be perceived to be fair and impartial, immune from pressure either by the institution's administration, the investigators whose protocols are brought before it, or other professional and nonprofessional sources. The chair may designate other IRB members to perform duties, as appropriate, such as reviews, signature authority, or other IRB functions.

The IRB members and the chair are appointed by the Dean of Research. IRB members who are faculty should be tenured, so as to avoid pressure or influence from more senior faculty or administrators. Due to the level of experience and relevant expertise needed to perform IRB duties, there are no term limits for IRB members, and they will continue to serve as long as they demonstrate knowledge of regulations, an understanding of the application of the ethical principles, and have time available to devote to the associated responsibilities. The Dean of Research will conduct annual reviews of the chair, IRB members, and IRB composition for compliance with Federal Regulations and Cal Poly policy and procedures, and will determine and seek action if a conclusion is made that a member’s participation should be discontinued. If it is necessary to add new or replace exiting members, several methods are used to identify candidates: the existing members may be asked to provide recommendations; faculty with expertise in areas specific to the types of projects reviewed may be contacted directly; open calls will be announced via campus websites and distributed emails; interested persons may contact the Dean of Research to express interest; or the Dean of Research may identify and recruit potential members.

The IRB should meet at least once per quarter during the academic year. A list of current IRB members is available from the Office of Research and Economic Development, Bldg. 38, Rm. 154; (805) 756-1508.

Date approved by the President: June 19, 2017
Effective Date: June 19, 2017
Responsible Department/Office: Office of Research and Economic Development
Revision History: June 19, 2018; June 19, 2017; May 24, 2006
Related University Policies, Procedures, Manuals and/or Documents:
Laws, Regulations and/or Codes of practice referred to herein or related to this policy:

261.1.2 Regulations, Policies and Standards for the Care and Use of Animal Subjects in Teaching and Research

The humane care, use, and treatment of vertebrate animals used for instruction, research, or related purposes is a campus responsibility. It is the policy of California Polytechnic State University to comply with federal, state, University, and other regulatory requirements as they relate to the acquisition, care, use and treatment of animals in the performance of authorized instruction and research. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee must provide assurance to a number of agencies that animals in all projects and activities are humanely cared for, used and treated in accordance with professionally acceptable standards. Accordingly, the committee has been charged with oversight and review of all qualifying campus animal care and use facilities and procedures.

In order to provide for the adequate discharge of this responsibility, all ongoing or proposed projects or activities in which vertebrate animals are used in teaching and/or research must be reviewed by the committee. This policy is applicable regardless of whether extramural funds or intramural funds are used, and includes those cases where no reimbursement for such study is involved.

Full policy text can be found at http://research.calpoly.edu/policyanimaluse.

Reference:

Date approved by the President: May 24, 2006
Office responsible for implementation: Research and Economic Development
Date when the policy is to be reviewed and by whom (where stipulated): Editorial changes made May 20, 2015 by ACS per ORED.
Related University Policies/Documents/Manuals/Handbooks:

Policy on the Administration of Sponsored Programs at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
CSU-EO890

Any laws, regulations or codes of practice which should be referred to in conjunction with the policy:
1. Animal Welfare Act, Public Law 89-544, 1966, and succeeding amendments.
2. 1996 Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, National Academy of Sciences
3. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, as amended in August 2002, and any subsequent revisions
4. Applicable provisions and regulations of Title 9, California Administrative Code, CALOSHA; Applicable provisions and regulations of the California Department of Public Health; Applicable provisions and regulations of the California Department of Fish and Game
5. Applicable provisions and regulations of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, P.L. 93-205, and succeeding amendments;
6. Applicable provisions and regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, P.L. 92-522, and succeeding amendments.

261.1.3 Policy on Conflict of Interest in Externally Funded Research

Investigators will disclose to the responsible representative of the institution all significant financial interests of the Investigator (including those of the Investigator’s spouse and dependent children) (i) that would reasonably appear to be affected by the activities funded or proposed for funding, or (ii) in entities whose financial interests would reasonably appear to be affected by such activities.

The term “Investigator” means the Principal Investigator, Co-Investigators, and any other person at the institution who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of activities funded or proposed for funding.

Investigators must provide all required financial disclosures at the time a proposal is submitted to any potential funding agency. Investigators must update those financial disclosures during the term of the award, either on an annual basis, or as new reportable significant financial interests are obtained (including during the course of the project if award is made). The Investigator must complete the “Investigator’s Statement of Economic Interest” and other disclosure statements (1) whenever he/she makes application for a new or renewal contract or grant, of (2) whenever a gift is specified by a donor for a specific Investigator or for a specific project for which the Investigator is responsible. The disclosure must be made before the proposed gift is accepted or application for funding is made for a new or renewed project or grant. The activity may not proceed without completion of the financial disclosure statement. An “Investigator’s Statement of Economic Interests” form must be filed within 90 days after the gift funds are exhausted, or the project is completed.

Full policy text can be found at http://research.calpoly.edu/policyCOI.

Reference:

Date approved by the President: May 24, 2006
Office responsible for implementation: Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Date when the policy is to be reviewed and by whom (where stipulated): Periodically by Conflict of Interest in Research Committee, Editorial changes made May 20, 2015 by ACS per ORED.
Related University Policies/Documents/Manuals/Handbooks:
1. Policy on the Administration of Sponsored Programs at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
2. CSU-EO890
Any laws, regulations or codes of practice which should be referred to in conjunction with the policy:
1. California Government Code 87300
2. CSU Conflict of Interest Code

261.1.4 Cal Poly Interim Research Misconduct Policy

261.1.4.1 Basis for Policies & Procedures

California Polytechnic State University, inclusive of all auxiliaries and campuses, hereafter referred to as Cal Poly, is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientiﬁc rigor in Research. Cal Poly is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of Research, discourages Research Misconduct, and deals promptly with Allegations or Evidence of possible Research Misconduct.

Research Misconduct is contrary to the interests of Cal Poly, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of Research, and the conservation of public funds. Both Cal Poly and its Institutional Members have a duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all Research conducted on behalf of Cal Poly. Cal Poly strives to reduce the risk of Research Misconduct, support all Good Faith eﬀorts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all Allegations of Research Misconduct, and seek to rectify the scientiﬁc record and researchers’ reputations, to the extent practical and appropriate.

All Institutional Members of Cal Poly, including administration, faculty, students, staff, volunteers, agents, and individuals affiliated by contract, subaward, and subcontract, are expected to conduct Research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each Institutional Member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes Research integrity and the responsible conduct of Research.

Cal Poly is responsible for ensuring that these policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct meet the requirements of the relevant sponsor and state regulations, policies, and terms and conditions. Cal Poly will establish and maintain these policies and procedures, inform all Institutional Members about these policies and procedures, and make these policies and procedures publicly available. Cal Poly is committed to following these policies and procedures when responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct.

For deﬁnitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Deﬁnitions section.

261.1.4.2 Scope and Applicability

This Interim Research Misconduct Policy is intended to comply with institutional responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93. Other federal agencies have published their own Research Misconduct regulations; to the extent those regulations apply to an Allegation of Research Misconduct and are inconsistent with this Interim Research Misconduct Policy, Cal Poly shall comply with the applicable regulatory requirements. This Interim Research Misconduct Policy also applies to Research that is not federally funded, although such cases need not be reported to the federal government.

This Interim Research Misconduct Policy applies to all Research conducted at Cal Poly, regardless of whether the Research activity is an externally funded award to the University or one of its auxiliary organizations, internally funded, or unfunded Research. Research conducted by Cal Poly individuals, such as faculty, staff, students, formal affiliates, or agents of Cal Poly is covered by this Interim Research Misconduct Policy regardless of whether the contribution is supported by monetary compensation or not.

Research activities covered by this Interim Research Misconduct Policy include systematic experiments, studies, evaluations, demonstrations, or surveys designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge or specific knowledge by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to the matters to be studied. The definition of Research in this Interim Research Misconduct Policy also includes Research training programs; activities related to the preparation of proposals, Research records, dissemination of Research activities in reports; and other Research-related activities such as operations of tissue or data banks.

Student activities that are entirely intended to serve curricular purposes and that do not meet the definition of Research activities within this Interim Research Misconduct Policy shall be addressed through relevant student academic policies and procedures.

Detrimental Research practices that do not meet the formal definition of Research Misconduct in this Interim Research Misconduct Policy, which encompasses Falsification, Fabrication, or Plagiarism, will be resolved through separate policies and procedures.

These policies and procedures apply to Research Misconduct occurring within six years of the date the Cognizant Agency or Cal Poly receives an Allegation of Research Misconduct, subject to the following exceptions:

Subsequent Use Exception: If the Respondent’s original conduct alleged to be improper occurred before the six-year window, but the Respondent continued or renewed this conduct within the six-year window through the use of, republication of, or citation to, the portion(s) of the Research Record alleged to have been Fabricated, Falsiﬁed, Plagiarized, or otherwise the result of Research Misconduct, the Allegation is subject to these policies and procedures. If Cal Poly determines this exception does not apply when it could appear to apply, Cal Poly will document its determination and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the Cal Poly’s Research Misconduct Proceeding or the completion of any other Cognizant Agency proceeding.
Public Safety Exception: The six-year time limitation does not apply if the Cognizant Agency or Cal Poly determines that the alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse eﬀect on the health or safety of the public.

261.1.4.3 Deﬁnitions

Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community: those practices established by 42 CFR Part 93, PHS funding components, other cognizant agencies, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive sponsored project funding or otherwise engage in Research.

Allegation: a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a Cal Poly or Cognizant Agency oﬃcial.

Assessment: consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

Cognizant Agency: the agency or agencies that funded the Research activities. The Cognizant Agency may be a California state agency if no other external funding is involved in the Research at issue in the Research Misconduct Proceedings.

Complainant: an individual who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Conflict of Interest (COI): A Conflict of Interest exists when a person’s financial, professional, or personal interests could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their objectivity, integrity, or judgment in conducting, reviewing, or overseeing Research or in handling an Allegation of Research Misconduct. Conflicts may be actual, potential, or perceived.

A Conflict of Interest includes, but is not limited to, the following categories:

1. Financial Conflicts of Interest

A financial Conflict of Interest means a significant financial interest that could be impacted by the Research or its results.

2. Professional and Personal Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts may arise from non-financial interests, such as:

• personal relationships (e.g., family, romantic, close professional ties);

• supervisory, mentoring, evaluative, or adversarial relationships;

• strong academic, intellectual, or ideological commitments that may unduly influence judgment;

• commitments to external entities or activities that create divided loyalties.

3. Conflicts in Research Misconduct Proceedings

A Conflict of Interest exists when an individual participating in an Inquiry, Investigation, or decision-making process has an interest or relationship that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. Individuals with such conflicts must be recused from involvement in the Research Misconduct Proceedings.

Evidence: includes documents (whether in hard copy or electronic form), information, tangible items, and testimony submitted to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.

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 such that the Research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.

Good Faith:

As applied to a Complainant or Witness; having a belief in the truth of one’s Allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the same position could have, based on the information known to the Complainant or Witness at the time. An Allegation or cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding is not in Good Faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation or testimony.

As applied to an institutional or committee member: cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this Interim Research Misconduct Policy. An institutional or committee member does not act in Good Faith if their acts or omissions during the Research Misconduct Proceedings are dishonest or inﬂuenced by personal, professional, or ﬁnancial conﬂicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Inquiry: preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-ﬁnding in accordance with this Interim Research Misconduct Policy to determine whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct warrants Investigation.

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO): the institutional official who makes final determinations about Allegations of Research Misconduct and any institutional actions. The IDO is the President of Cal Poly or their designee. The Institutional Deciding Official does not serve as the Research Integrity Officer and is not directly involved in the institution’s preliminary assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation. The IDO’s involvement, if any, in the appointment of a person to assess Allegations of Research Misconduct, or to serve on an Inquiry or Investigation committee, is not considered to be direct involvement.

Institutional Member or Members: means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is aﬃliated by contract or agreement with Cal Poly. Institutional Members may include, but are not limited to, oﬃcials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staﬀ, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, attorneys, or employees/agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Intentionally: to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation: the formal development of a factual record leading to a decision about whether to recommend a finding of Research Misconduct, which may include a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including institutional actions.

Knowingly: to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism: the 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 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.
Plagiarism under this Interim Research Misconduct Policy 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 may be subject to other policies and procedures.

Preponderance of the Evidence: is a standard of proof that determines whether alleged conduct is more likely than not to have occurred, based on the Evidence presented or facts available at the time of the decision. It means that the Evidence supporting the conclusion is more convincing or has greater weight than the Evidence supporting a different conclusion.

Research: a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge or specific knowledge by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to the matters to be studied. The definition of Research in this Interim Research Misconduct Policy also includes Research training programs. Research for the purposes of this Interim Research Misconduct Policy also includes activities related to the preparation of proposals, Research Records, dissemination of Research activities in reports, and other Research-related activities such as operations of tissue or data banks.

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

Research Integrity Oﬃcer (RIO): the institutional oﬃcial responsible for administering this Interim Research Misconduct Policy for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct. Cal Poly may also appoint Deputy RIO’s to fulfill RIO duties in collaboration with the RIO, to ensure that Research Misconduct Proceedings can be completed in a timely manner and that each campus has a campus RIO or Deputy RIO. The RIO and any Deputy RIO’s relevant to each Allegation will document in writing the responsibilities of each RIO and Deputy RIO for the specific Research Misconduct Proceeding. For Allegations received that relate only to the campus where the RIO is employed, any Deputy RIO’s will only be involved in the Research Misconduct Proceedings if that involvement is needed to ensure the Allegation/s are addressed in a timely manner.

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.

Research Misconduct Proceeding: means any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken under this Interim Research Misconduct Policy, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, Cognizant Agency oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record: the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientiﬁc Inquiry or other scholarly endeavors, including but not limited to Research proposals, laboratory records, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, correspondence, and any documents and materials provided to the RIO in the course of a Research Misconduct Proceeding. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form.

Respondent: the person against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Retaliation: an adverse action taken against a Complainant, 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.

Witness: a person who has been identified by Cal Poly or by the Cognizant Agency, as having information regarding a Research Misconduct Allegation, or a person who is asked to testify in a Research Misconduct Proceeding. A Witness provides information for review during Research Misconduct Proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the Research Misconduct Proceedings in Good Faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

261.1.4.4 General Policies and Principles

261.1.4.4.1 Prohibition against Research Misconduct

Cal Poly prohibits Research Misconduct and investigates and responds to Allegations of Research Misconduct in accordance with this Interim Research Misconduct Policy. Throughout the Research Misconduct process, which begins at the time an Allegation is made, all participants shall bear in mind the importance, both in fact and in appearance, of thoroughness, fairness, and objectivity. Individuals subject to this Interim Research Misconduct Policy found to have committed Research Misconduct shall be subject to sanctions up to and including termination.

A finding of Research Misconduct requires that:

There is a Preponderance of Evidence of Fabrication, Falsification, and/or Plagiarism that indicates a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community; and
The Respondent committed the Research Misconduct Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly.

261.1.4.4.2 Standard of Proof

Cal Poly bears the burden of proof for making a finding of Research Misconduct based on a Preponderance of Evidence. A Respondent has the burden of proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, all defenses raised (such as honest error) against the Allegation of Research Misconduct.

The destruction of Research Records, absence of Research Records, or Respondent’s failure to provide Research Records adequately documenting the questioned Research is Evidence of Research Misconduct where the institution establishes by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Respondent Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly had Research Records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the Research Records but did not do so, or maintained the Research Records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community.

261.1.4.4. 3 Responsibility to Report Misconduct

All individuals subject to this Interim Research Misconduct Policy are required to report to the RIO any Research Misconduct they observe or reasonably believe may have occurred. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, that individual may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research Misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, then the RIO may refer the individual or Allegation to other offices or officials, where appropriate.

261.1.4.4.4 Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings

All individuals subject to this Interim Research Misconduct Policy shall cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of Allegations and the conduct of Inquiries and Investigations. All individuals subject to this Interim Research Misconduct Policy, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide Evidence relevant to Research Misconduct Allegations to the RIO or other institutional officials.

261.1.4.4.5 Duty to Maintain confidentiality

During a Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO, all committee members (as defined in this Interim Research Misconduct Policy), Complainants, Respondents, and Witnesses as well as all others at Cal Poly who may be involved in or aware of the Research Misconduct Proceeding shall to the extent possible: (1) limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct proceeding; and (2) except as otherwise prescribed by law or regulation, limit the disclosure of any records or Evidence from which Research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

While the RIO, committee members, Complainants, Respondents, Witnesses, and other persons involved will maintain confidentiality to the extent practical, it is possible that the Respondent and others may nevertheless know the identity of Complainants, Witnesses, and Respondents. As described elsewhere within this Interim Research Misconduct Policy, all individuals involved in a Research Misconduct Proceeding are prohibited from retaliating against others involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

The determination of need to know will be made by the RIO, legal counsel, or executive of Cal Poly. Those with a need to know may include, but are not limited, Deans, Department Chairs, Academic Personnel/Human Resources, institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, research subjects, potential Witnesses, and collaborating institutions. Any disclosures based on need to know will be completed by the RIO, Committee members (when authorized by the RIO), legal counsel, or other executives. This limitation on disclosure will no longer apply once Cal Poly has made a ﬁnal determination on the Research Misconduct Allegations. However, the RIO and Committee members are to be mindful of privacy considerations and intellectual property rights and should not disclose confidential information learned only because of the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except where required by law, Interim Research Misconduct Policy, or legitimate business needs of Cal Poly.

Inappropriate dissemination of information may result in sanctions up to and including termination.

261.1.4.4.6 Cal Poly Cooperation with Cognizant Agencies

Cal Poly will cooperate with any relevant Cognizant Agencies during Research Misconduct Proceedings. Such cooperation includes, but is not limited to, addressing deficiencies or additional Allegations in the Institutional Record if so directed by the Cognizant Agency, assisting in the administration and enforcement of any Cognizant Agency administrative actions imposed on Institutional Members, and providing any Cognizant Agency with Institutional Records and sequestered Evidence as requested or required by Cognizant Agency policies or regulations.

261.1.4.4.7 Rights and Responsibilities of Complainant

The Complainant is responsible for making Allegations in Good Faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the Inquiry and Investigation. The Complainant may be interviewed at the Inquiry stage and/or the Investigation phase and shall be given the transcript or recording of the interview for review and correction. After making an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the Complainant is required to provide Evidence and information and to cooperate with the Research Misconduct process but is not entitled to receive information about the status or outcome of that process.

261.1.4.4.8 Rights and Responsibilities of Respondent

The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an Inquiry and Investigation. The Respondent is entitled to the procedural rights and protections set forth in this Interim Research Misconduct Policy.

A Respondent may bring a union representative to interviews and must inform the interviewer/s that they have brought representation to the interview. A representative brought to an interview may not provide responses to questions or input during the interview. The Research Misconduct Proceeding may be subject to rescheduling if there is no union representative available at the prescribed time, but it should not be delayed on the basis that the Respondent’s chosen representative is not available.

During a Research Misconduct Proceeding, the Respondent may provide additional Evidence or name additional Witnesses relevant to the Research Misconduct Proceeding. If the Respondent would like additional Evidence examined, the RIO will first determine with the Respondent if the relevant Evidence is available within the digital or other records already sequestered. If the Evidence is not available in the records already sequestered, Cal Poly may sequester additional physical or electronic Evidence. If the Evidence is not available for Cal Poly to sequester, Evidence may be directly accepted from the Respondent by the RIO. Evidence accepted by the RIO that is not part of the official sequestered record, and where the provenance may therefore be unclear, may be given less weight in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

The Respondent may not be present during the Witnesses’ interviews but will be provided a redacted transcript after the interview takes place and is transcribed.

The Respondent should be given the opportunity to admit that Research Misconduct occurred and that the Respondent committed the Research Misconduct. With the advice of the RIO and/or other institutional officials, the IDO (in their discretion) may terminate Cal Poly’s review of an Allegation that has been admitted, provided that, for federally funded Research, Cal Poly’s acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement is approved by the relevant federal agency.

261.1.4.4.9 Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, the RIO, and Committee Members

Cal Poly will ensure that the RIO, Research Misconduct committee/s, or person acting on the institution’s behalf conducts Research Misconduct Proceedings in compliance with this Interim Research Misconduct Policy. Cal Poly community members may not retaliate in any way against Complainants, Witnesses, the RIO, or committee members. Any alleged or apparent Retaliation against Complainants, Witnesses, the RIO, or committee members should be reported immediately 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 who the Retaliation is directed.

261.1.4.5 Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

261.1.4.5.1 Assessment of Allegations

The purpose of an Assessment is to promptly determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry. An Assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation. The RIO is responsible for completing the Assessment as soon as reasonably possible after receipt of the Allegation. If upon receipt of an Allegation, the RIO has any Conflict of Interest with those involved in the Allegations, or is otherwise unable to serve as the RIO for the review of the Allegation, then the President or their designee shall appoint another qualified individual to serve as RIO for the Research Misconduct Proceedings to review the Allegation, complete the Assessment, and conduct any Research Misconduct Proceedings resulting from the Assessment.

Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the RIO will promptly determine if;

the Allegation falls within the deﬁnition of Research Misconduct in this Interim Research Misconduct Policy, and
is sufficiently credible and speciﬁc to identify and sequester potential Evidence.

An Inquiry must be conducted if the two criteria above are met.

If the RIO determines that the Allegation meets these two criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the Assessment and (b) initiate an Inquiry and sequester all reasonably-available Research Records and other Evidence.

If the RIO determines that the Allegation does not meet the criteria to proceed to an Inquiry, they will dismiss the Allegations and write suﬃciently detailed documentation to permit a later review of why Cal Poly did not proceed to an Inquiry and securely retain this documentation for seven years or longer if otherwise required by Cognizant Agency or CSU retention policies. If the RIO determines that the Allegation meets the criteria to proceed to an Inquiry, the RIO will document the Assessment, and it will become part of the Research Misconduct Proceedings Institutional Record and will be retained for seven years after completion of the Research Misconduct Proceedings or longer if otherwise required by Cognizant Agency or CSU retention policies. If a Cognizant Agency completes the Assessment and indicates that the Assessment phase is completed, Cal Poly will rely on that Cognizant Agency Assessment and will not complete a new assessment.

261.1.4.5.2 Interim Actions

Throughout the Research Misconduct Proceedings, the RIO will evaluate the Allegations to identify if any of the following circumstances arise:

Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
Cognizant Agency resources or interests are threatened.
Research activities should be suspended.
There is 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.
The Cognizant Agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard Evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

If any such circumstances arise, the RIO will notify any relevant Cognizant Agency and may, in consultation with other Cal Poly officials, take appropriate interim actions such as placing additional monitoring on related research activities, reassignment of activities away from a Respondent, delay publications, or take other relevant actions.

261.1.4.5.3 Inquiry

If the RIO determines through the Assessment that the Allegation requires an Inquiry, Cal Poly will endeavor to complete the Inquiry within 90 days of initiating it, unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which case it will suﬃciently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the Inquiry report.

The purpose of an Inquiry 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. If the RIO is unable to serve as the RIO for the Inquiry, either due to a Conflict of Interest or for other reasons, the President or their designee may appoint an alternative RIO.

261.1.4.5.3.1 Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

If there is a decision to proceed to an Inquiry, Cal Poly will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all reasonably-available Research Records and other Evidence that are pertinent to the Research Misconduct Proceeding. Cal Poly will complete an inventory of these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years. The RIO will sequester all Research Records that are available to Cal Poly and that are known or believed to be relevant at the time of the initial sequester. The RIO will rely on relevant Deans, Associate Deans, and in some cases, Department Chairs, to assist with confidentially sequestering relevant Research Records. The RIO will also rely on the Information Security team to sequester digital Research Records. Cal Poly will also obtain, inventory, and securely sequester additional Evidence when such items become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation.

Once the RIO has sequestered any records as deemed appropriate, Cal Poly 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, that the relevant Research Records have been sequestered, and that an Inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an Investigation. If additional Allegations are raised, Cal Poly will notify the Respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, Cal Poly will give the Respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.

If additional Respondents are identiﬁed, Cal Poly 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.

261.1.4.5.3.2 Personnel Involved in the Inquiry

The Cal Poly RIO will complete the Inquiry with support from subject matter experts when needed. Cal Poly will ensure that the RIO and any subject matter experts understand their commission, keep the identities of Respondents, Complainants, and Witnesses conﬁdential, and conduct the Research Misconduct Proceedings in compliance with this Interim Research Misconduct Policy and relevant regulations.

261.1.4.5.3.3 Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The RIO will conduct a preliminary review of the Evidence. In the process of fact-ﬁnding, the RIO may interview the Respondent and/or Witnesses. If the RIO interviews Respondents, Witnesses, or other relevant persons, the RIO will take notes and provide the notes to the interviewee after the interview for comment.

An Investigation is warranted if the RIO determines:

(a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the deﬁnition of Research Misconduct under this Interim Research Misconduct Policy; and

(b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-ﬁnding from the Inquiry indicates that the Allegation may have substance.

The RIO will not determine if Research Misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged Research Misconduct was Intentional, Knowing, or Reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an Investigation.

261.1.4.5.3.4 Completing & Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the Inquiry, regardless of whether an Investigation is warranted, the RIO will prepare a written draft Inquiry report. The RIO will give the Respondent a copy of the draft Inquiry report for review and comment after redacting any information needed to protect a Complainant, Research participants, or similar information. The Respondent will have no more than 15 working days to review and comment on the draft Inquiry report.

The RIO will incorporate any comments made by the Respondent into a final Inquiry report. The contents of a complete Inquiry report will include:

The names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and Complainant(s).
A description of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct.
Details about proposals to or funding from relevant agency/ies, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing external support.
The RIO’s name and information about any subject matter experts involved in the Inquiry, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
An inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
Any scientiﬁc or forensic analyses conducted.
The basis for recommending that any Allegation(s) warrant an Investigation or do not merit further Investigation.
Any comments on the redacted Inquiry report by the Respondent.
Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
Documentation of potential Evidence of honest error or diﬀerence of opinion.

The RIO will notify the Respondent of the Inquiry’s ﬁnal outcome and provide the Respondent with copies of the redacted ﬁnal Inquiry report, relevant Cognizant Agency regulations, and these policies and procedures.

The RIO and Cal Poly are not required to notify any Complainant/s whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted but may choose to notify Complainants under exceptional circumstances or where Complainants are Witnesses in the subsequent Investigation. If the RIO provides notice to one Complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all Complainants in the case.

Within 30 days of determining that an Investigation is warranted the RIO will provide the Cognizant Agency with a copy of the Inquiry report. If an Investigation is not warranted, Cal Poly will provide the Cognizant Agency with a copy of the Inquiry Report on the timeline required by the Cognizant Agency if the Cognizant Agency referred the Allegation to Cal Poly.

261.1.4.5.4 If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:

If the RIO determines that an Investigation is not warranted, Cal Poly will keep suﬃciently detailed documentation to permit a later review of why it 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 the records to Cognizant Agencies upon request.

261.1.4.5.5 If an Investigation is Warranted:

If the RIO determines that an Investigation is warranted, Cal Poly must within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the Respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an Investigation into the Allegation(s). This notice should include notification of the Allegations to be investigated, including any new Allegations of Research Misconduct not addressed during the Inquiry.

261.1.4.6 Investigation

The purpose of an Investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend ﬁnding(s) to the IDO, who will make the ﬁnal decision, based on a Preponderance of Evidence, on each Allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its Investigation Cal Poly will pursue diligently all signiﬁcant issues and relevant leads, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct. Cal Poly will also diligently pursue relevant leads to identify and obtain Evidence exonerating the Respondent.

Within 30 days after deciding an Investigation is warranted, Cal Poly will notify any Cognizant Agency of the decision and begin the Investigation.

If a new Conflict of Interest or other issue has arisen with the current RIO assignment, the President or their designee may appoint an alternate RIO for the Investigation.

261.1.4.6.1 Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

Cal Poly will notify the Respondent(s) of the Allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an Investigation is warranted and before the Investigation begins. If Cal Poly identiﬁes additional Respondents during the Investigation, it will add the new Respondent(s) to the ongoing Investigation and will provide notice to the newly identified Respondent/s and allow them to respond the same way other Respondents may respond within the Investigation. Each Respondent will receive notification only of the Allegations with which they are involved.

Cal Poly will obtain any newly identified relevant Research Records and other Evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its Research Misconduct Proceeding or any Cognizant Agency proceeding, whichever is later.

261.1.4.6.2 Convening an Investigation Committee

The RIO will identify a committee of at least three, and typically no more than five, tenured faculty members who have sufficient scientific and/or research expertise to understand the Allegations and evaluate the Evidence. Depending on the content of the Allegation, relevant expertise may include, but is not limited to, expertise in relevant methodologies, practices of relevant research communities, the same scientific field, or other expertise related to the Allegations. The RIO will review committee members for direct Conflicts of Interest, ask members to self-identify potential conflicts, and provide the Respondent with the opportunity to identify potential Conflicts of Interest. Committee members must be in good standing with the campus as confirmed by Civil Rights and Compliance, Academic Affairs, and Office of Research.

To ensure committee members have sufficient scientific expertise to review the Allegation(s), committee members may be faculty within the same departments or colleges as the Respondents. Additional committee members or expert Witnesses may be identified from the campus community or from outside of Cal Poly if needed to ensure sufficient expertise is available to complete the Investigation.

Once the committee members are identified, the RIO will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceedings in compliance with this Interim Research Misconduct Policy and any relevant regulations. The Investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all Research Records and other Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation(s). Cal Poly will use diligent eﬀorts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough, suﬃciently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The RIO will notify the Respondent in writing of any additional Allegations raised against them during the Investigation.

261.1.4.6.3 Conducting Interviews

The Investigation committee will interview each Respondent, Complainant(s), 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. The Respondent(s) will be asked to specifically respond to each Allegation, providing information about their knowledge about the Allegation, identifying additional Evidence or Witnesses, and responding to questions from the Investigation committee about the Allegation(s). If any new Allegations are added during the Investigation, each relevant Respondent will be interviewed and provided the opportunity to address the new Allegation/s. The Complainant(s) will also be asked to specifically describe each Allegation, providing information about the Allegation, identifying additional Evidence or Witnesses, and responding to questions from the Investigation committee about the Allegation(s).

The Investigation committee will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number with support from the RIO. Cal Poly will record and ensure all interviews are transcribed and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. Interviewees will be instructed to provide corrections, if any, within 10 business days of receiving the transcript. Extensions may be granted by the RIO if requested and warranted.

Cal Poly will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the Investigation. The Respondent will not be present during the Witnesses’ interviews, but the institution will provide the Respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain conﬁdentiality.

261.1.4.6.4 Gathering and Reviewing Further Evidence

If the Respondent(s), Complainant(s), and/or Witness(es) identify additional Evidence or Witnesses to interview, the RIO will ensure the Investigation committee obtains access to the Evidence or Witnesses. For new Evidence, the RIO will sequester records physically or digitally when such records are available as Cal Poly records, working with ITS for digital sequestration. Evidence provided by the Respondent(s) or Complainant(s) with unclear provenance will be accepted by the RIO but may be viewed with less weight than records obtained through formal sequestration. The committee will interview all relevant Complainants(s), Respondent(s), and Witness(es).

261.1.4.6.5 Completing the Investigation

Once all Evidence identified by Respondent(s), Complainant(s), and Witness(es) is obtained and reviewed by the Investigation committee and all relevant interviews are completed, the Investigation committee shall determine through discussion and by majority vote whether each Allegation received for each Respondent is or is not Research Misconduct. For each determination that Research Misconduct occurred, the Investigation committee will also determine by majority vote, whether the Research Misconduct was done Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly. Votes cast by the Investigation committee will not be recorded by name.

Cal Poly will complete all aspects of the Investigation within 180 days or within the timeline required by the Cognizant Agency, unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which case Cal Poly will request an extension from any relevant Cognizant Agency or notify the President or their designee of the delay, and will document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the Investigation report.

261.1.4.6.6 Documenting the Investigation

Once a determination is made for each Allegation, the RIO and Investigation committee document the Investigation and its outcomes.

261.1.4.6.6.1 Investigation Report

The Investigation report for each Respondent will include:

Narrative description of the nature of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct, including any additional Allegation(s) addressed during the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Description and documentation of any external funding support, including grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications referencing any such support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with funding agencies. Internal funding may be included also but is not required to be provided to external funding agencies.
Itemization of the speciﬁc Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation of the Respondent.
Composition of Investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
Inventory of sequestered Research records and other Evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the Investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the Investigation.
Transcripts of all interviews conducted during the Investigation phase and notes taken of interviews conducted during the Inquiry phase and relied upon during Investigation.
Identiﬁcation of the speciﬁc published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other Research records that contain the allegedly falsiﬁed, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
Any scientiﬁc or forensic analyses conducted.
A copy of these policies and procedures.
Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant(s) on the draft Investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
A statement for each separate Allegation of whether the committee recommends a ﬁnding of Research Misconduct.

As to each Allegation for which the committee recommends a ﬁnding of Research Misconduct, the Investigation report will:

identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct;
indicate whether the misconduct was falsiﬁcation, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism;
indicate whether the misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly;
identify any signiﬁcant departure from the Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community and that the Allegation was proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence;
summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent;
include mitigating Evidence or circumstances, if any;
identify the speciﬁc Cognizant Agency support; and
state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the Investigation committee does not recommend a ﬁnding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The Investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with federal agencies.

261.1.4.6.6.2 Internal Investigation Report Addenda

If any Respondent provided Evidence that was not relied upon during the Investigation, the RIO and Investigation Committee will also prepare internal addenda describing any such Evidence and will provide the justification for not relying on any such Evidence. If multiple Respondents provide such Evidence, multiple addenda will be prepared, and each Respondent shall receive only the addendum that applies to the Evidence they provided.

Internal addenda will be prepared for the IDO for each Respondent with a list of other known Research engagements involving each Respondent. This will include proposals and applications for internal and external non-federal support. The addenda will also list all internally and externally funded Research awards that include involvement of each Respondent. These addenda will include such records known by the Office of Research and the RIO at the time of preparation of the addenda. Each Respondent shall only receive the addendums that applies to their Research activities.

261.1.4.6.7 Completing the Investigation

The RIO will give each Respondent a copy of their draft Investigation report, redacted as needed, and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the Research Records and other Evidence that the Investigation committee considered or relied on. The RIO will also provide the Respondent with any internal addenda associated with the Investigation and the specific Respondent. The Respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the institution within 30 days of receiving the draft Investigation report. Cal Poly will add any comments received to the Investigation report.

261.1.4.6.8 IDO Review of the Investigation Report

The RIO will provide the Investigation report along with any relevant addenda to the IDO for review and final determination of any Research Misconduct finding/s and determination of appropriate administrative actions. The IDO will determine appropriate administrative actions in consultation with relevant campus personnel, such as Academic Affairs, Academic Personnel, Human Resources, Office of Research, and the Investigation committee.

The IDO will make a ﬁnal written determination of whether Cal Poly found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken. After the IDO makes the final written determination, the final Investigation report for each Respondent will be provided to the Respondent, the Respondent’s Dean, the Respondent’s Associate Dean for Research, the Respondent’s Department Chair, the Associate Vice Provost for Research, the Provost, and Academic Personnel or other relevant office if the Respondent is not a faculty member.

If the final Investigation report results in a finding or findings of Research Misconduct, the findings may result in discipline, up to and including termination of employment. Actions taken by Cal Poly as a result of findings of Research Misconduct remain subject to any applicable bargaining agreements, law, and regulations.

If the final Investigation report results in a finding that Research Misconduct did not occur, Cal Poly will take reasonable steps to address impacts to the Respondent’s reputation, if any.

261.1.4.6.9 Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record

After the IDO has made a ﬁnal determination of Research Misconduct ﬁndings, Cal Poly will add the IDO’s written decision to the Investigation report and organize the institutional record in a logical manner.

The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the institution did not rely on. These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all Research records and Evidence relied upon during Inquiry and Investigation, transcripts of transcribed interviews, the Inquiry report and Investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the Investigation. The institutional record also includes the IDO’s ﬁnal decision and any information the Respondent provided to the institution. The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

If the Respondent filed an appeal, the complete record of any institutional appeal also becomes part of the institutional record. Cal Poly will wait until the appeal is concluded to transmit the institutional record to the Cognizant Agency.

After the IDO has made a ﬁnal written determination, and any appeal is complete, Cal Poly must transmit the institutional record to the Cognizant Agency.

261.1.4.6.10 Cognizant Administrative Actions

After the Investigation report is submitted to the Cognizant Agency the Cognizant Agency may take additional administrative actions according to its regulations and policies. Any Respondent(s) subject to Cognizant Agency procedures or administrative actions may take steps as an individual to appeal Cognizant Agency findings or actions, but Cal Poly is not responsible for providing support to the Respondent in the Cognizant Agency appeal process. Cal Poly will comply with requests from such a Cognizant Agency when such requests have a legal basis.

261.1.4.7 Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

261.1.4.7.1 Internal Appeals

A Respondent may initiate an internal appeal of a finding of Research Misconduct on limited procedural grounds by emailing the Associate Vice Provost for Research and Provost within 15 business days of receiving the final Investigation report. The grounds for an appeal should be limited to procedural errors that likely affected the outcome, failure to consider relevant Evidence that was timely presented to the investigating body that could reasonably have affected the findings, and new Evidence not available to the Respondent during the Investigation.

A single reviewer who was not involved in the Research Misconduct Proceedings shall be appointed by the IDO or designee to conduct the appeal. The reviewer will not conduct a new Investigation except to consider the potential impact of substantial new or previously unconsidered Evidence. If Evidence should be considered or if there was another procedural error, the reviewer can request that the Investigation committee reopen the Investigation to address the Evidence and/or error.

The appeal process and outcome do not affect Respondent’s rights under relevant bargaining agreements or applicable law to grieve disciplinary actions arising from a finding of Research Misconduct.

261.1.4.7.2 Multiple Institutions

If the alleged Research Misconduct involves multiple institutions, the RIO will consult with the other aﬀected institution/s and counsel to determine whether a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding will be conducted. A joint Research Misconduct case may occur when two or more institutions may need to share information and Evidence. Examples of such cases include, but are not limited to;

Cases where a prior Cal Poly researcher is involved in a Research Misconduct Proceeding at a new institution and some of the Allegations involve work completed while at Cal Poly,
Cases where a Cal Poly researcher is the Respondent, but the work involved in the Allegation occurred at a prior institution, or
Cases with multiple Respondents from multiple institutions are involved in an Allegation.

If Cal Poly chooses to participate in a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding, Cal Poly and the other cooperating institutions will develop a Memorandum of Understanding, Reliance, or similar agreement to govern how the Research Misconduct Proceeding will be conducted.

The institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding, the lead institution will collaborate with the other institution/s to obtain Research records and other Evidence pertinent to the Research Misconduct Proceeding, including Witness testimony. By mutual agreement, the joint Research Misconduct Proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further Inquiry and/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. The specific responsibilities and authorities of each institution will be negotiated for each Research Misconduct Proceeding based on the specific circumstances of the Allegation(s).

261.1.4.7.3 Respondent Admissions

Cal Poly will promptly notify the Cognizant Agency in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a Research Misconduct case because the Respondent has admitted to committing Research Misconduct or a settlement with the Respondent has been reached. If the Respondent admits to Research Misconduct, Cal Poly will not close the case until it has provided the Cognizant Agency with the Respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must state the speciﬁc Fabrication, Falsiﬁcation, or Plagiarism that occurred, which Research records were aﬀected, and that it constituted a signiﬁcant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community. Cal Poly must not close the case until after Cal Poly has provided the Cognizant Agency a written statement conﬁrming the Respondent’s culpability and explaining how Cal Poly determined that the Respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct. An admission of Research Misconduct may result in discipline, up to and including termination of employment. Actions taken by Cal Poly as a result of an admission of Research Misconduct remain subject to any applicable bargaining agreements, law, and regulations.

261.1.4.7.4 Records Retention

Cal Poly will 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 the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any relevant Cognizant Agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to a relevant Cognizant Agency.

261.1.5 Policy on the Administration of Sponsored Programs at Cal Poly

Sponsored programs provides significant benefits to the University and furthers its educational mission by facilitating research, workshops, conferences, and other projects that enrich the scholarly endeavors of faculty and students and enhance the services provided by the University to California communities and the nation. This document delineates or refers to policies, procedures and organizational structures for the administration of grants and contracts denoted as sponsored programs/projects. All procedures and actions are designed to conform to federal and state laws and regulations, CSU, University and Foundation policies. In the event that a given contract or grant contains terms and conditions that are not in conflict with, but are more restrictive than, those provided in the campus policy, the more restrictive terms and conditions of the grant or contract shall prevail. The intent of this policy is to ensure that the administration of sponsored programs maximizes the benefits of these programs; effectively supports faculty, students, and administrators in securing funding for and carrying out sponsored activities; and is in compliance with CSU policy including Executive Order 890 or its successor. (See http://www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-890.pdf).

Full policy text can be found at http://research.calpoly.edu/policysponsprog.

Reference:

Date approved by the President: May 24, 2006
Office responsible for implementation: Various administrative offices
Date when the policy is to be reviewed and by whom (where stipulated): Editorial changes made May 20, 2015 by ACS per ORED.
Sunset clause (where stipulated):
Related University Policies/Documents/Manuals/Handbooks: Various policies and guidelines referenced in the full policy
Any laws, regulations or codes of practice which should be referred to in conjunction with the policy: Various, referenced in the full policy and related policies

Reference:

Date approved by the President: May 24, 2006
Office responsible for implementation: Research and Economic Development
Date when the policy is to be reviewed and by who (where stipulated): Editorial changes made May 20, 2015 by Administrative Compliance Services (ACS) per Office of Research and Economic Development (ORED)
Related University Policies/Documents/Manuals/Handbooks:
1. Policy on the Administration of Sponsored Programs at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
2. CSU-EO890
Any laws, regulations or codes of practice which should be referred to in conjunction with the policy:

262 Policy for the Establishment, Evaluation and Discontinuation of University Centers and Institutes

A center or institute may be formed as an organizational entity within the University if the teaching, research, or public service activities of the faculty members who participate will be improved or if the activities cannot be supported by a single department. A center or an institute can enhance professional development opportunities for faculty, build links with industry and the community, provide identifiable campus entities for practitioners, foster interdisciplinary work, aid in obtaining external support, and complement the instructional program. An institute is a unit that has more than one interest and/or function. A center is a unit with one interest and/or function. An institute may encompass a number of units or centers.

A proposed center or institute must receive conceptual approval from the Academic Deans’ Council and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs before a formal proposal can be submitted. Full approval requires Academic Senate review, ad hoc administrative review, Deans Council recommendation, recommendation by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs to the President, and Presidential approval. Centers and institutes undergo regular evaluation through the University's Academic Program Review Process. They may be discontinued as a result of this process, or at any time according to the bylaws of the unit.

Full policy text can be found at http://research.calpoly.edu/content/centers-institutes-and-specialized-laboratoriesfacilities.

Reference:

Date approved by the President: May 24, 2006
Office responsible for implementation: Research and Economic Development
Date when the policy is to be reviewed and by whom (where stipulated): Editorial changes made May 20, 2015 by ACS per ORED.
Related University Policies/Documents/Manuals/Handbooks:
1. Policy on the Administration of Sponsored Programs at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
2. CSU EO-890
3. CSU EO- 751
4. Guide to the administration of gifts, sponsored support and other resources acquired through external relationships

263 Intellectual Property Policy

Purpose. The University is committed to providing an intellectual environment in which all members of the academic community – whether they are faculty engaged in life-long professional development, students pursuing educational objectives, or staff dedicated to their own career goals – learn to the fullest extent possible. The University also recognizes and values creativity and innovation as part of this learning process. Similarly, the University recognizes the importance of, and wishes to encourage, the transfer of new knowledge, generated in the University, to the private sector for the public good. At the same time, as a publicly funded institution, the University must be a good steward of the public resources provided to it, and must safeguard against the use of public funds for private gain. Scope. This policy addresses the rights to, interest in, and protection and transfer of intellectual property created by University faculty, staff and students. Issues not directly considered in this policy, including disagreements concerning its application or interpretation, will be addressed and resolved consistent with applicable law and collective bargaining agreements. In the event of a conflict between this policy and the collective bargaining agreements, the bargaining agreements shall prevail. Policies affecting the use of the University's names or symbols are covered elsewhere.

The full text of the University’s policy and procedures on Intellectual Property may be viewed online at: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1637&context=senateresolutions.

Reference:

Date approved by the President: August 17, 2006
Office responsible for implementation: Research and Economic Development
Date to be reviewed and by whom: Editorial changes made May 20, 2015 by ACS per ORED.
Sunset clause (where stipulated):
Related University policies/documents/manuals/handbooks:
Laws, regulations or codes of practice that should be referred to in conjunction with the policy: none cited

264 Indirect Cost Recovery and Uses

264.1 Definition of Indirect Costs

Indirect costs, also called F & A (facilities and administrative) costs, are defined by the federal government as those costs incurred in the development, administration and conduct of sponsored projects that go above and beyond the direct costs of a specific project. Such indirect costs include expenses for space and facilities (excluding renovations and new construction), office and laboratory equipment, maintenance, utilities, library use, basic telephone and computer support, accounting functions, and department, college and University administrative costs incurred in the conduct of government- and privately sponsored research, development, instructional, training, service, consulting, and demonstration projects.

264.2 Recovery of Indirect Costs

It is the policy of the CSU and the University to seek full indirect cost reimbursement for each sponsored project, whether administered by the University or the Corporation. The University and Corporation negotiate periodically with the federal government to establish an indirect cost rate (percentage), which, when applied to the direct costs of a sponsored project, results in full indirect cost recovery. It is the expectation of the federal government that this rate will be used for all sponsored projects carried out by the University.

264.3 Use of Indirect Costs

Recovered indirect costs are used to support the administrative costs associated with sponsored projects, including the staffing and operations of Corporation Sponsored Programs and the University’s Grants Development Office. Recovered indirect costs that remain after meeting such expenses will be allocated to various uses in support of future sponsored projects and research and development activities. At the end of each fiscal year, the Dean of Research submits to the President a report on sponsored program activities during that year, including recovered indirect cost income, and makes recommendations for the allocation of any uncommitted indirect cost funds.

CHAPTER 200 Academic Affairs