University of Saskatchewan Policies

Research Integrity

Category: Research and Scholarly Activities
Responsibility:  Vice-President Research
Authorization: University Council
Approval Date: June 17, 2010

1.0 Purpose:

To set forth the standards for research integrity for all those involved in any capacity in research at the University of Saskatchewan.

2.0 Principles

The research, scholarly and artistic work of members of the University of Saskatchewan must be held in the highest regard and be seen as rigorous and scrupulously honest. Scholarly work is expected to be conducted in an exemplary fashion, be ethically sound, and contribute to the creation of and the refinement of knowledge. Stewardship of resources associated with research must be transparent and comply with all University and funding agency policies and regulatory requirements.

Allegations of research misconduct at the University of Saskatchewan will be dealt with by prompt, effective procedures that ensure fairness and protect both those whose integrity is brought into question and those who bring forward allegations of misconduct.

The University of Saskatchewan will provide ongoing educational opportunities for those engaged in research to develop and maintain “the highest standards of integrity, accountability, and responsibility.” 1

3.0 Scope of this Policy

For the purposes of this document, “research” encompasses the creation of new knowledge and understanding through research, scholarly, and artistic work.
 
This policy applies to all members of the University involved in research, in any capacity whatsoever.  Members of the University of Saskatchewan, include but are not limited to, faculty, professors emeriti, sessional lecturers, staff, trainees, clinical faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, adjunct professors, visiting professors, visiting scholars, professional affiliates, associate members, residents, and postdoctoral fellows (PDFs) at the University of Saskatchewan. 

Nothing in these procedures will limit or amend the provisions of any existing collective agreement at the University of Saskatchewan.  Subject to existing collective agreements, the formal resolution procedures in this Policy will not be used if an allegation is, or has been addressed using another University procedure such as a grievance, a hearing for a student academic misconduct or non-academic student discipline and appeal.  Allegations of research misconduct brought against graduate and undergraduate students will be dealt with through the Regulations on Student Academic Misconduct2.

1 From the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship. Full document available at: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/tpsintegrity-picintegritie_eng.pdf
2 http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/honesty/StudentAcademicMisconduct.pdf

Lack of awareness of the policies, cultural differences, and/or impairment by alcohol or drugs are not a defense for research misconduct.  If it can be demonstrated that a university member knew or reasonably ought to have known that he or she has violated the university’s research integrity policy, then the violation may be dealt with under the provisions of this policy.

This policy document is supported by two procedural documents entitled Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct at the University of Saskatchewan and Procedures for Stewardship of Research Records and Materials at the University of Saskatchewan.

4.0 Definition of Research Misconduct

Definitions of research misconduct include, but are not limited to:

  1. the intentional fabrication or falsification of data, erroneously reporting research procedures, or data analysis; the use of someone else’s data or ideas and claiming it as one’s own; plagiarism; or other deceitful acts or improprieties in proposing, conducting, reporting, or reviewing research;
  2. failure to comply with pertinent federal, provincial, international, or University guidelines for the protection of researchers, human subjects, the public, and the welfare of animals; or failure to meet other legal requirements that relate to the conduct of research;
  3. failure to conduct research in the manner in which it has been approved by the University’s Research Ethics Boards;
  4. failure to disclose any conflict of interests when asked to undertake reviews of research grant applications or to test products for sale or distribution to the public;
  5. failure to disclose conflict of interests prior to any commitment or expenditure of research funds and failure to notify their respective unit head should a conflict arise at a later point;
  6. failure to disclose to the University any financial interest in a company that contracts with the University of Saskatchewan to undertake research, particularly research involving the company's products, or to provide research-related materials or services.  Financial interest means ownership, direct or indirect beneficial interest, substantial stock holdings, a directorship, honoraria or consulting fees, but does not include minor stock holding (<$10,000) in publicly traded corporations;
  7. misuse of funds acquired for the support of research; and,
  8. failure to comply with terms of research funding agreements or university policy on Research and Scholarly Activities and the Administration of Research Funds.

The definitions of misconduct in research should not be interpreted as including differences of opinion regarding research methodologies, analyses of data, and theoretical frameworks.

5.0 Policy

Research, scholarly, and artistic work at the University of Saskatchewan will be conducted under the highest standards of research integrity and in accordance with the following assigned responsibilities:

5.1 Responsibilities of Members of the University

University Members: University members are responsible for conducting their research, scholarly, and artistic work according to the highest standards of research integrity. University members are also responsible for:

  1. obtaining all the required University of Saskatchewan and respective agency approvals and training for research including, but not limited to, research involving human or animal subjects, fieldwork, biohazards, radioisotopes, environmental impact.
  2. ensuring that their research, scholarly, and artistic work is conducted in accordance with these approved protocols and that they adhere to all reporting requirements.
  3. ensuring students and research staff are carefully supervised and trained in the conduct of research, scholarly, and artistic work, including experiments, processing of acquired data, recording of data and other results, interpretation of results, publication, and the storage of research records and materials.
  4. exercising “scholarly and scientific rigour and integrity in obtaining and analyzing data,”3 including being able to verify the authenticity of all data or other factual information generated in their research while ensuring that confidentiality is protected where required.
  5. protecting the privacy of any individuals whose personal information has been obtained as part of any research activities as required under the University’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Policy, the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Health Information Protection Act.
  6. managing funds acquired for the support of research as required by the terms of research funding agreements and the university policies on the Administration of Research Funds4 and the Administration of Research Grants and Contracts5.
  7. ensuring that individuals, and only those individuals, who have made a substantive intellectual contribution to research being reported in a publication are included as an author6. Specific requirements for authorship and acknowledgement will be determined by the ethical guidelines or procedures established by a researcher’s discipline (i.e. set out by the journal(s) where publication is sought or by the leading journals in the researcher’s discipline).
  8. reporting conflicts of interest as per the University of Saskatchewan Policy on Conflict of Interest7.
  9. disclosing to the relevant Senior Administrator any research misconduct of which they have become aware whether or not it is specifically included within the policy.

University Officials: University Officials (Senior Administrators, Department Heads, Directors, and Managers) are responsible for promoting and overseeing research, scholarly, and artistic work at the University of Saskatchewan that is conducted with the highest standards of research integrity. They are also responsible for:

  1. dealing expeditiously and fairly with any known instances or allegations of research misconduct and,
  2. encouraging activities that support research integrity among University Members.

3 From the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship. Full document available at: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/tpsintegrity-picintegritie_eng.pdf
4 http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/policies/research/8_22.php
5 http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/policies/research/8_20.php
6 From the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship. Full document available at: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/tpsintegrity-picintegritie_eng.pdf
7 U of S Policy on Conflict of Interest is available at http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/policies/operations/4_01_01.php

Senior Administrators: Under this policy, Senior Administrators include: Deans (when respondents are faculty members, sessional lecturers or students in a college); Directors or Associate Vice-Presidents in charge of an administrative Unit (when respondents are employees); the Provost (when respondents are Deans or visiting professors); the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research (when respondents are adjunct professors, post doctoral fellows, professional affiliates or visiting scholars/professors); Vice-Presidents (when respondents are Directors of an administrative unit or Associate Vice-Presidents), the President (when respondents are Vice-Presidents); and, the Board of Governors (when the respondent is the President).

These individuals (or their designees) are responsible for:

  1. determining whether a formal investigation will occur; and
  2. directing and overseeing formal investigations, as outlined in the Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct.

6.0 Confidentiality

University Officials, Senior Administrators, Department Heads, Directors, and Managers will protect the confidentiality of information regarding a potential violation of this Policy to the fullest extent possible.  If the allegation is substantiated, the University reserves the right to use or disclose information in accordance with the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which may include disclosing the discipline, if any, imposed on members of the University.

7.0 Education

To promote a greater understanding of research ethics and integrity issues, the University will offer workshops, seminars, web-based materials, courses, and research ethics training for University members along with orientation for those members who are new to the university.  When examples of investigations at the University of Saskatchewan are used for the purpose of educating University members on acceptable practices for scholarly integrity and research ethics, personal identifiers will be removed from these cases in an effort to maintain confidentiality.8

8.0 Contact

For further information please contact the Susan Blum, Director, Research Services at susan.blum@usask.ca or 966-8575 or Diane Martz, Director, Research Ethics Office at diane.martz@usask.ca or 966-8585.

Effective date of these regulations 2010-09-01

Adapted from Ethical Conduct in Research, University of Toronto. Full document available at: http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/policies/ethicalr.htm

Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct at the University of Saskatchewan

1.0 Application

These procedures accompany the Research Integrity Policy and apply to all allegations of research misconduct against members of the University of Saskatchewan, except when the member is a graduate or undergraduate student. Allegations of research misconduct by graduate and undergraduate students will be dealt with through the Regulations on Student Academic Misconduct9 or the Standard of Student Conduct in Non-Academic Matters10. Oversight of the procedures is the responsibility of the Office of the Vice-President Research.

For the purposes of this document, “research” encompasses the creation of new knowledge and understanding through research, scholarly, and artistic work conducted by members of the University of Saskatchewan.  A University member includes, but is not limited to, all faculty, professors emeriti, sessional lecturers, staff, trainees, clinical faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, adjunct professors, visiting professors, visiting scholars, professional affiliates, associate members, residents, and postdoctoral fellows (PDFs), at the University of Saskatchewan.

Procedures shall be consistent with appropriate clauses in Collective Agreements including University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association (USFA), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1975, the Administrative and Supervisory Personnel Association (ASPA), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3287, the Professional Association of Interns and Residents (PAIRS).

2.0 Reporting Research Misconduct

A person or representative of a funding agency who believes that he or she has knowledge of research misconduct that violates this policy should immediately report their allegation of research misconduct in writing to a Senior Administrator or a University Official.  Anonymous allegations will be considered only if all relevant facts are publicly available or otherwise independently verifiable.

Reporting to a Senior Administrator: Subject to the provisions in sections 3 and 4 of the Research Integrity Policy, the Senior Administrator will provide a confidential consultation to assess allegations of research misconduct, determine whether they fall under this policy, and outline options for resolution.  Individuals who consult with the Senior Administrator may choose:

  1. to ask the Senior Administrator to facilitate a resolution or resolve the matter informally;
  2. to request a hearing under this Policy; or,
  3. to take action to resolve the issue directly or address it using another University procedure.

9 http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/honesty/StudentAcademicMisconduct.pdf
10 http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/honesty/StudentNon-AcademicMisconduct.pdf

Reporting to a University Official: Incidents may also be reported to a University Official.  When these individuals receive an allegation of research misconduct or become aware of an incident, they should refer the allegation to the relevant Senior Administrator to determine an appropriate course of action.

3.0 Options for Resolution

Reports and allegations of research misconduct can be resolved using informal and/or formal procedures. Informal approaches focus on resolving the problem as opposed to determining right or wrong or taking disciplinary action.  This type of resolution may include consultation, raising the matter directly with the offending party, or mediation.

4.0 Requesting a Hearing

Hearings may be requested by complainants, respondents and University Officials.  A request for a hearing is initiated by filing a written allegation of research misconduct and submitting it to the relevant Senior Administrator, who will decide whether a hearing is warranted.  This decision will be made after the Senior Administrator has reviewed the written allegation, shared it with the respondent(s) and provided an opportunity for the respondent(s) to respond to the allegation.

The Senior Administrator will assess whether the allegation:

  1. is outside the jurisdiction of these procedures as outlined in Section 3.0 of the Research Integrity Policy;
  2. is clearly mistaken or unjustified;
  3. involves allegations that, even if proven, would not constitute Research Misconduct as defined in Section 4.0 of the Research Integrity Policy;
  4. is frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith,

The Senior Administrator will inform the complainant, the respondent, and the Vice-President Research of his or her decision in writing within twenty-eight (28) calendar days of having received the written allegation.  If deemed necessary, the Senior Administrator may restrict research and/or related activities until the allegation is resolved.

5.0 Appeal of the Senior Administrator’s Decision

  1. Either the complainant or the respondent may appeal the decision of the Senior Administrator about whether a hearing is warranted, by delivering to the Vice-President Research a written notice of appeal before the expiry of fourteen (14) calendar days from the date a copy of the decision was delivered to that person.  The notice should include a written statement of appeal that indicates the grounds on which the appellant intends to relay, any evidence the appellant wishes to present to support those grounds, and (where relevant) what remedy or remedies the appellant believes to be appropriate. 
  2. An appeal will be considered only on one or more of the following grounds:
    1. That the Senior Administrator had no authority or jurisdiction to reach the decision he or she did;
    2. That there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Senior Administrator;
    3. That the Senior Administrator made a fundamental procedural error that seriously affected the outcome
    4. That new evidence has arisen that could not reasonably have been presented to the Senior Administrator and that would likely have affected her/his decision.
  3. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Vice-President Research or designate will review the original allegation and the written decision of the Senior Administrator and within twenty-one (21) calendar days will decide if a hearing is warranted.  The decision of the Vice-President Research with respect to allowing a hearing to go forward is final, with no further appeal.

6.0 The Rights and Responsibilities of Parties to a Hearing

Hearings provide an opportunity for a balanced airing of the facts before an impartial board of decision-makers.  All hearings of alleged academic misconduct will respect the rights of members of the university community to fair treatment in accordance with the principles of natural justice.  In particular,

  1. A university member against whom an allegation of research misconduct is made is to be treated as being innocent until it has been established, on the balance of probabilities and before a board of impartial and unbiased decision-makers, that he/she has committed an act of research misconduct.
  2. The parties have a right to a fair hearing before an impartial and unbiased decision-maker.  This right includes the right for either party to challenge the suitability of any member of the hearing board based on a reasonable apprehension of bias against the complainant’s or respondent’s case.  The Senior Administrator will determine whether a reasonable apprehension of bias is warranted.
  3. Reasonable written notice will be provided for hearings, and hearings will be held and decisions rendered within a reasonable period of time.  It is the responsibility of all parties to ensure that the University has current contact information for them.  Any notice not received because of a failure to meet this requirement will have no bearing on the proceedings.
  4. Hearing board procedures and protocols will be communicated to all parties prior to the hearing.
  5. All information provided to a hearing board in advance of a hearing by either party will be shared with both parties prior to the hearing.
  6. Neither party will communicate with the hearing board without the knowledge and presence of the other party.  This right is deemed to have been waived by a party who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing or to send an advocate in her/his place.
  7. The complainant and the respondent have a right to bring an advocate (which may be a person selected by the appropriate bargaining unit, or where a member prefers or is not part of a bargaining unit by a friend, advisor, or legal counsel) to a hearing, and to call witnesses, subject to the provisions below in keeping with the rights of the hearing board to establish its own procedures.  This right is subject to the provision that the names of any witnesses and/or advocates are provided to the Senior Administrator or designate at least 2 days prior to the hearing.
  8. Parties to these proceedings have a right to a reasonable level of privacy and confidentiality, subject to provincial legislation on protection of privacy and freedom of information.
  9. The hearing board has a right to determine its own procedures subject to the provisions of these Procedures, and to rule on all matters of process including the acceptability of the evidence before it and the acceptability of witnesses called by either party.  Hearing boards may at their discretion request further evidence or ask for additional witnesses to be called.
  10. No disciplinary measures shall be taken against the complainant if the allegation is found to have been made in good faith.  Moreover efforts will be made to ensure that no retaliatory action is taken against the complainant in such cases.  If the allegation is found to have been made in bad faith, the Senior Administrator will further investigate under the University Policy on Discrimination and Harassment.
  11. Complaints alleging acts of retaliation including threats, intimidation, reprisals or adverse employment or education action against a person who has filed a complaint or participated in any manner in the investigation or resolution of a report of research misconduct will be investigated under the University Policy on Discrimination and Harassment.

7.0 Procedures for Formal Hearings

When it has been determined that a formal hearing should proceed, the following steps will be taken.

  1. Within twenty eight (28) calendar days, the Senior Administrator or designate shall convene a hearing board composed of a chair, and at least three senior members of the University or of another academic institution.  The hearing board may be a standing committee of the university appointed for this purpose.  The members of the hearing board will have no actual, apparent, reasonable, perceived, or potential conflict of interests or bias and will jointly have appropriate subject matter expertise and administrative background to evaluate the allegation of research misconduct and the response to it.  The complainant and the respondent will be advised of the composition of the hearing board and will have seven (7) calendar days from time of notification to advise the Senior Administrator of their intent to challenge the suitability of any member of the hearing board based on a reasonable apprehension of bias against the complainant’s or respondent’s case.
  2. The hearing board is to receive the evidence, decide whether an act of research misconduct has been committed and if so, recommend disciplinary action proportional to the misconduct.  The Senior Administrator shall co-ordinate suitable administrative support to the hearing board.
  3. The Senior Administrator or designate shall provide both the complainant and the respondent with at least seven (7) calendar days’ written notice of the time, date and place of the hearing.  The hearing may be rescheduled if necessary to accommodate participants’ schedules, with the guideline that the hearing should wherever possible be held within thirty (30) calendar days of the determination by the Senior Administrator, or in the case of an appealed decision, by the Vice-President Research that a formal hearing will proceed.  Where there are special circumstances (as determined by the Senior Administrator or designate), the matter may be heard on less than seven (7) calendar days’ notice.
  4. If the respondent does not respond to the written notification of the hearing, or chooses not to appear before the hearing board, the hearing board has the right to proceed with the hearing.  An absent respondent may be represented by an advocate who may present his or her case at the hearing.
    1. Generally, hearings will be held with all parties present.  If any of the parties to the hearing, or any advocate, witness, or observer is unable to attend in person, the hearing board may at its discretion and where circumstances demand proceed on the basis of written submissions.  The hearing board may also provide for such person(s) to participate by telephone, subject to the provision that either party to the dispute (or their advocate) must be capable of hearing all evidence being presented, and of responding to all evidence and questions, and that witnesses and/or observers may be invited to join the hearing by telephone for the part of the hearing to which they would normally have been invited in person.  Provision must be made for all parties to the proceedings to know when a party participating by telephone is signing on and signing off.
  5. The hearing board is not bound to observe strict legal procedures or the rules of evidence, but shall establish its own procedures subject to the following:
    1. Hearing boards under these regulations have an adjudicative role.  It is the responsibility of the complainant(s) to provide a rationale for the allegation of research misconduct and to present the evidence in support of it, and it is the responsibility of the respondent(s) to answer the charge.
    2. Both complainant and respondent shall be given adequate notice in writing and full opportunity to participate in the proceedings other than the deliberations of the hearing board.
    3. The hearing shall be restricted to persons who have a direct role in the hearing as complainant or respondent or their advocates, members of the hearing board, persons who are acting as witnesses.  At the discretion of the chair, other persons may be admitted to the hearing for training purposes, or other reasonable considerations.
    4. When the hearing board meets, the complainant and the respondent or their advocates shall have the opportunity to be present before the hearing board at the same time.  Either side may call witnesses, who would normally be present only to provide their evidence.  Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the chair.  Hearing boards may at their discretion request further evidence or ask for additional witnesses to be called.
    5. The allegation of research misconduct and the evidence allegedly supporting it, and supporting documentation and/or witnesses, shall be presented by the person who made the allegation, or that person’s advocate.
    6. The chair may at his or her discretion grant an opportunity for the respondent or the respondent’s advocate and members of the hearing board to ask questions of the person presenting the allegation of research misconduct and any person giving evidence allegedly supporting it.
    7. The respondent or the respondent’s advocate shall then be allowed to respond to the allegation and to present supporting documentation and/or witnesses.
    8. The chair may at his or her discretion grant an opportunity for the person presenting the allegation and members of the hearing board to ask questions of the respondent and any witness for the respondent.
    9. Both the complainant and the respondent will have the opportunity to explain their respective interpretations of the evidence presented in a closing statement, and to suggest what sanctions, if any, they believe are appropriate to the matter before the hearing board.
  6. If, during the course of the investigation, the evidence discloses a new related instance of possible Research Misconduct that was not part of the original allegation or which suggests additional respondents, the hearing board may expand the investigation, provided that the complainant and respondent are notified and the respondent is allowed to respond.  If the expanded investigation involves new respondents, they will be provided with notice and shall for the purpose of this framework, be treated as respondents.
  7. Once a hearing concludes, the hearing board may not consider any additional evidence without re-opening the hearing to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to review and respond to the new evidence.
  8. The Chair shall notify both the Senior Administrator and the Vice-President Research of interim findings, if any, that he/she believes should be reported because of the University’s obligations to students, staff, and faculty members, funding agencies and sponsors or, where there are compelling issues of public safety.  Any interim report shall be in writing and copied to all members of the hearing board, to the complainant and respondent, the Senior Administrator and the Vice-President Research.  The report shall set out the findings, the reason for the interim report, and a recommendation regarding appropriate administrative action.

7.1 Decision of the Hearing Board and Determination of Consequences

After all questions have been answered and all points made, the hearing board will meet in camera to decide whether an act of research misconduct has been committed and, if so, to determine one or more appropriate sanctions.  These deliberations are confidential11.  The hearing board has the sole authority to determine whether or not the respondent has committed an act of research misconduct.

11 Records of deliberations may be subject to a Freedom of Information request

  1. The standard of proof shall be whether the balance of probabilities is for or against the respondent having committed the offense.
  2. Within sixty (60) calendar days of being appointed, the hearing board shall complete its inquiry and shall submit a report on its reasoned decision in writing to the complainant, the respondent, the relevant Senior Administrator, and the Vice-President Research.  If there is more than one respondent or complainant, reasonable efforts will be made to provide each with parts of the report that are pertinent to him/her.  It is recommended that the format of the hearing board report contain the following:
    1. the full allegation of research misconduct;
    2. a list of hearing board members and their credentials;
    3. a list of the people who contributed evidentiary material to the investigation or were interviewed as witnesses;
    4. a summary of relevant evidence;
    5. a determination of whether Research Misconduct occurred;
    6. if Research Misconduct has occurred, its extent and seriousness;
    7. recommendations on any remedial action to be taken in the matter in question; and,
    8. recommendations of changes to procedures or practices to avoid similar situations in the future (for example, in the case of Research Misconduct or if a serious scientific error has been made which does not constitute Research Misconduct).
    Recommendations of the hearing board may also include, without limitation:
    1. withdrawing all pending relevant publications;
    2. notifying publishers of publications in which the involved research was reported;
    3. notifying co-investigators and collaborators of the decision;
    4. ensuring the unit(s) involved is informed of appropriate practices for promoting the proper conduct of research;
    5. informing any outside funding sponsor(s) of the results of the inquiry and of actions to be taken.
  3. Members of the hearing board must sign a statement indicating that they agree to the release of the report based on majority rule.  No minority reports shall be allowed.
  4. The report of the hearing board is final and not subject to revision.   
  5. If it is established that the respondent has committed an act of research misconduct, the Senior Administrator shall, upon receipt of this advice of the hearing board, determine whether or not formal disciplinary action is to be taken or where appropriate recommend formal disciplinary action to the President, taking into consideration contractual and other obligations to external organizations and prior offenses under this policy.  The respondent and complainant will have seven (7) calendar days from the receipt of the hearing board report to make submissions to the Senior Administrator regarding the findings, in advance of any disciplinary action recommended by the Senior Administrator. Decisions about disciplinary action shall be made and communicated in writing to the complainant, the respondent, the relevant Senior Administrator, and the Vice-President Research within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date that the Senior Administrator receives the hearing board report
  6. The disciplinary action taken as a consequence of research misconduct will be proportional to the misconduct, and may include:
    1. verbal reprimand;
    2. written reprimand with a letter held in the individual’s permanent personnel file;
    3. withdrawal of specific research privileges;
    4. revoking membership in the College of Graduate Studies and Research, if applicable;
    5. suspension with or without pay; or,
    6. termination.
  7. If the Hearing Board advises that the allegation should be dismissed, and the Senior Administrator accepts this advice, the Senior Administrator shall so advise any person identified in the allegation of research misconduct, the respondent, other appropriate Deans or Directors, and the Vice-President Research.  In addition, the notification requirements of the applicable Collective Agreement shall be followed.
  8. Where the allegation is not substantiated, the Senior Administrator, in consultation with the Respondent and the hearing board that conducted the investigation, shall take all reasonable steps to repair any damage that the Respondent's reputation for scholarly integrity or research activities may have suffered by virtue of the allegation.  The Senior Administrator shall ensure that a letter confirming the finding of no misconduct is sent to the respondent, with a copy to the complainant, the Vice-President Research.  With the consent of the respondent, a letter confirming the finding of no misconduct may be sent to other persons with knowledge of the allegation.  These persons may include co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators, and others who may have been notified by the Senior Administrator.
  9. The respondent(s) and the complainant who brought the allegation shall be advised that either of them may appeal the hearing board results through the applicable grievance process12  or through the appeal process outlined in section 8.0.  Any penalties that are the outcome of a hearing board remain in force unless and until they are overturned by an appeal board or through a grievance process. 

12 Members of ASPA, CUPE 1975, CUPE 3287, PAIRS, or USFA. may grieve any action taken by the University using the grievance procedure in the relevant collective agreement.

8.0 Appeals under this Policy

  1. Appeals under this policy may be requested by university members who are not represented by a collective agreement and who are not students.  Members of ASPA, CUPE 1975, CUPE 3287, PAIRS, or USFA may grieve any action taken by the University using the grievance procedure set out in the relevant collective agreement.
  2. Either the complainant or the respondent may appeal the decision of the hearing board and/or the penalty imposed by delivering to the Vice-President Research a written notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of a copy of the hearing board report.  The notice should include a written statement of appeal that indicates the grounds on which the appellant intends to rely, any evidence the appellant wishes to present to support those grounds, and (where relevant) what remedy or remedies the appellant believes to be appropriate.
  3. An appeal will be considered only on one or more of the following grounds:
    1. That the original hearing board had no authority or jurisdiction to reach the decision or impose the sanction(s) it did;
    2. That there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a member or members of the original hearing board;
    3. That the original hearing board made a fundamental procedural error that seriously affected the outcome;
    4. That new evidence has arisen that could not reasonably have been presented at the initial hearing and that would likely have affected the decision of the original hearing board.
  4. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Vice-President Research or designate will review the record of the original hearing and the written statement of appeal and determine whether or not the grounds for appeal are valid.  If the Vice-President Research determines that there are no valid grounds under these Procedures for an appeal, then the appeal will be dismissed without a hearing.  If the Vice-President Research determines that there may be valid grounds for an appeal, then the appeal hearing will proceed as provided for below.  The decision of the Vice-President Research with respect to allowing an appeal to go forward is final, with no further appeal.

8.1 Appeals Board

The appeal board will be constituted by the Vice-President Research within twenty one (21) calendar days and will be composed of three senior members of the University or of another academic institution.  One member of the appeal board shall be named chair.  Individuals appointed to serve on an appeal board shall exclude anyone who was involved in the original hearing of the case.  The members of the hearing board will have no actual, apparent, reasonable, perceived, or potential conflict of interests or bias and will jointly have appropriate subject matter expertise and administrative background to evaluate the allegation and the response to it.  The complainant and the respondent will be advised of the composition of the hearing board and will have seven (7) calendar days to advise the Vice-President Research of their intent to challenge the suitability of any member of the hearing board based on a reasonable apprehension of bias against the complainant’s or respondent’s case.

8.2 Appeal Procedure

  1. The appeal board shall convene to hear the appeal within twenty-one (21) calendar days of being constituted.  Under exceptional circumstances, the Board may extend this period.
  2. Written notice of the hearing, along with a copy of these Procedures and of the written statement of appeal, will be delivered by the Vice-President Research or designate to the appellant, to the other party in the original hearing as respondent, to the chair of the original hearing board, and to members of the appeal board.  Where possible and reasonable, the schedules of all parties will be accommodated and at least seven (7) calendar days notice of the time and location of the hearing will be provided.  Where there are special circumstances (as determined by the Vice-President Research or designate), the matter may be heard on less than seven (7) calendar day notice.
  3. If any party to these proceedings does not attend the hearing, the appeal board has the right to proceed with the hearing, and may accept the written record of the original hearing and the written statement of appeal and/or a written response in lieu of arguments made in person.  An appellant who chooses to be absent from a hearing may appoint an advocate to present his/her case at the hearing.
  4. The appeal board is not bound to observe strict legal procedures or rules of evidence but shall establish its own procedures subject to the following principles:
    1. Appeal boards under these regulations will not hear the case again but are limited to determining whether the original hearing board had authority and jurisdiction to hear the original case; whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the original hearing board that heard the case; whether the original hearing board made fundamental procedural errors that seriously affected the outcome; or whether any new evidence that is being presented would likely have affected the original outcome AND could not reasonably have been presented at the original hearing.
    2. The parties to the hearing shall be the appellant (who may be either the original complainant or the original respondent) and the other party to the original hearing as respondent.  The chair (or another member designated by the chair) of the original hearing board is invited to attend and at the discretion of the chair will be permitted to participate in the hearing and to answer questions of either party or of the appeal board.
    3. Except as provided for under 8.0 c. iv. above, no new evidence will be considered at the hearing.  The record of the original hearing, including a copy of all material filed by both sides at the original hearing, and the written statement of appeal, will form the basis of the appeal board’s deliberations.
    4. It shall be the responsibility of the appellant to demonstrate that the appeal has merit.
    5. Hearings shall be restricted to persons who have a direct role in the hearing.  Witnesses will not normally be called, but the appellant may request the presence of an advocate and up to three observers.  At the discretion of the chair, other persons may be admitted to the hearing for training purposes, or other reasonable considerations.
    6. The appellant and the respondent shall be present before the appeal board at the same time. 
    7. Both the appellant and the respondent will have an opportunity to present their respective cases and to respond to questions from the other party and from members of the appeal board.
    8. Both the appellant and the respondent will have the opportunity to suggest what sanctions, if any, they believe are appropriate to the matter before the appeal board.

8.3 Disposition by the Appeal Board

  1. After all questions have been answered and all points made, the appeal board will meet in camera to decide whether to uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the original hearing board.  The deliberations of the appeal board are confidential.
  2. The appeal board may, by majority,
    1. Conclude that the appellant received a fair hearing from the original hearing board, and uphold the original decision; or
    2. Conclude that the appellant did not receive a fair hearing, but that the outcome determined remains appropriate and the original decision is upheld; or
    3. Conclude that the appellant did not receive a fair hearing, and dismiss or modify the original decision and/or sanctions using any of the remedies available in Section 7.1; or
    4. Order that a new hearing board be struck to re-hear the case.  This provision shall be used only in rare cases such as when new evidence has been introduced that could not reasonably have been available to the original hearing board and is in the view of the appeal board significant enough to warrant a new hearing.
  3. The chair of the appeal board shall prepare a report of the board's deliberations that shall recite the evidence on which the board based its conclusions and state any penalty imposed or withdrawn.  The report shall be delivered to the Vice-President Research and distributed as provided for in Section 6.5.
  4. If the decision of a hearing board is successfully appealed, the chair of the appeal board shall ask the relevant Senior Administrator to take all reasonable steps to repair any damage that the appellant’s reputation for academic integrity may have suffered by virtue of the earlier finding of the hearing board.

8.4 No Further Appeal

The findings and ruling of the appeal board shall be final with no further appeal.

8.5 Reports

Not later than 15 days after a hearing board or an appeal board has completed its deliberations, the chair shall deliver a copy of the report to the Appellant, the Respondent, the relevant Senior Administrator, and the Vice-President Research.  If there is more than one Appellant or Complainant, reasonable efforts will be made to provide each with parts of the report that are pertinent to him/her. 

9.0 Records

Records pertaining to allegations that result in disciplinary action will be retained in the respondent’s official file in accordance with existing University policies, procedures and collective agreements.

No record of an allegation of research misconduct will be kept in the complainant's official file except the record of disciplinary action resulting from a complaint that is made in bad faith.

Subject to the provisions of the Research Integrity Policy and Procedures and the requirements of law, any and all records pertaining to charges and/or hearings and/or sanctions under these Procedures are confidential and should be kept in a file accessible only to the Vice-President Research and their confidential assistants for a period of fifty years or while any legal or official proceedings are pending. After this time, the records may be destroyed.  These records are strictly confidential and will be disclosed only when disclosure is required by law or by a legal or official proceeding.  The Vice-President Research shall make them available to hearing boards and appeal boards as provided for in section 7.1e.

De-identified summaries of decisions based on investigations of research misconduct will be prepared periodically by the Office of the Vice-President Research. 

10.0 Funding Agencies and Research Collaborators

When an investigation into alleged misconduct in research that has been funded by a Tri-Council Agency is substantiated, in whole or in part, the conclusions reached and actions taken as a result of the investigation will be reported to the appropriate Agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the report being submitted to the Vice-President Research.13 Other sponsors or funding agencies that require similar notification will be notified in accordance with the procedures identified by the specific agency. 
In instances involving researchers and research collaborators associated with other institutions, the Senior Administrator or the Vice-President Research shall inform the Senior Administration of the collaborator’s institution of the substantiated allegation of research misconduct.

13 From the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship. Full document available at http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/tpsintegrity-picintegritie_eng.pdf

Procedures for Stewardship of Research Records at the University of Saskatchewan

Members of the University [defined below] involved in research at the University of Saskatchewan must create and retain records in accordance with these procedures.  The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that the authenticity of all data and other factual information generated in research can be verified and to ensure that any research records containing personal and personal health information about identifiable individuals are stored in a manner which protects the privacy of such personal and personal health information in accordance with the University’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Policy14 and the appropriate freedom of information and protection of privacy acts. 

Research records must be recorded appropriately, archived for defined time periods or for reasonable longer periods [described below], and made available for review if required in the following situations:

  • to ensure the appropriate use of human and animal participants in research and compliance with biosafety, radiation safety, environmental and other regulations or requirements;
  • to ascertain compliance with research sponsorship terms;
  • to protect the rights of students (undergraduate and graduate), postdoctoral fellows, staff, and other research team members, including rights to access records from research in which they participated as a researcher;
  • to assist in proving and/or securing intellectual property rights;
  • to enable investigations of allegations of academic misconduct or conflict of interest; and,
  • to assist and enable other administrative or legal proceedings involving the University and/or researchers, or its/their interests, related to their research.

1.0 Application

These procedures apply to all members of the University involved in research, in any capacity whatsoever.  Members of the University of Saskatchewan, include but are not limited to, faculty, professors emeriti, sessional lecturers, staff, trainees, clinical faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, adjunct professors, visiting professors, visiting scholars, professional affiliates, associate members, residents, and postdoctoral fellows (PDFs) at the University of Saskatchewan.  Nothing in these procedures will limit or amend the provisions of any existing collective agreement at the University of Saskatchewan. 

Research records are those documents and other records and materials recorded by or for a researcher that are necessary to document, reconstruct, evaluate, and validate research results and the events and processes leading to the acquisition of those results.  Research records may be in many forms including but not limited to laboratory notebooks, survey documents, questionnaires, interview notes, transcripts, machine-generated data or performance outputs, recruitment materials, consent forms, correspondence, other documents, computer files, audio or video recordings, photographs including negatives, slides, x-ray films, samples of compounds, organisms (including cell lines, microorganisms, viruses, plants, animals) and components of organisms.

14 http://www.usask.ca/university_secretary/policies/operations/Freedom-of-Information.php

2.0 Collection and Retention

The Principal Investigator15 (PI) is responsible for the collection, maintenance, privacy, and secure16 retention of research records in accord with these procedures and applicable privacy legislation.  The PI should also ensure that all personnel involved with the research understand and adhere to established practices that are consistent with these procedures.

Research records must be recorded or preserved in accordance with the highest standard of scientific and academic practice and procedures.  Research records must be retained in sufficient detail to enable the University and the involved researchers to respond to questions about research accuracy, authenticity, compliance with pertinent contractual obligations, and University of Saskatchewan and externally imposed requirements and regulations governing the conduct of the research. 

Human research ethics applications require a statement outlining the procedures researchers will use to securely store research records including the length of time the research records will be stored, the location of storage, the identity of the person responsible for storage of research records, and the procedures that will ensure secure storage.  Research participants must be informed of the purpose, use and retention of the records as part of the information provided to them to make an informed decision about whether to consent to participate in the study.  Research participants must also be informed about any potential for secondary use of research records.

Research record retention periods will vary depending on the research discipline, research purpose and type of records involved.

Research records must be retained for not less than:

  • five (5) years after the end of a research project’s records collection and recording period;
  • five (5) years from the submission of a final project report;
  • five (5) years from the date of publication of a report of the project research; or,
  • five (5) years from the date a degree related to a particular research project is awarded to a student.

whichever occurs last.

Research records must be retained for longer periods:

  • if required to protect intellectual property rights;
  • if such research records are subject to specific federal or provincial regulations17 requiring longer retention periods;
  • if required by the terms of a research sponsorship agreement; or,
  • if any allegations regarding the conduct of the research arise, such as allegations of academic misconduct or conflict of interest.

Research records may be retained for longer periods if retention is required for the continuity of scientific research or if the research records are potentially useful for future research by the PI or other researchers18.
 
The Tri-Councils place the following responsibilities on grant holders:

  • The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Policy on Data Sharing states that all research data collected with the use of SSHRC funds must be preserved and made available for use by others within a reasonable period of time19. 
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grantees must deposit bioinformatics, atomic and molecular coordinate data into the appropriate public database immediately upon publication of research results20.
  • CIHR grantees must retain original data sets arising from CIHR-funded research for a minimum of five years after the end of the grant. This applies to all data, whether published or not21. 
  • Collections of animal, culture, plant or geological specimens, or archaeological artifacts (“collections”) collected by a grantee with Tri-Council grant funds are the property of the University22.

3.0 Destruction of Research Records and Materials

Destruction of research records must be carried out so that personal information cannot practicably be read or reconstructed23.  In some cases it may be advisable to document the manner and time of destruction.

4.0 Leaving the University

When a researcher (including a student) involved in a research project leaves the University, she or he may take a copy of the research records related to her or his research. 

If a PI leaves the University of Saskatchewan or a project is to be moved to another institution, the University must be notified of the location of the original research records.  In some instances (e.g., where University of Saskatchewan intellectual property or other interests are involved), such transfer may not be permitted, and any such agreement may require diligent retention by the recipient and continued access by the University of Saskatchewan.

The obligations of researchers set out in these procedures continue to apply if an individual takes copies of research material to his/her new institution.

15 A Principal Investigator (PI) is a person responsible for performing, directing, or supervising research, or who signs a research sponsorship agreement in acknowledgement of the obligations of himself, herself, or the University. 
16 Research records must be stored securely and protected with all the precautions appropriate to its sensitivity and privacy.  Highly sensitive records may need to be held on computers not connected to networks and located in secured areas with restricted access.  Secure storage may mean encryption of research records sent over the internet or kept on a computer connected to the internet; adherence to guidelines on data storage on mobile drives, digital recording devices or laptop computers; the use of computer passwords, firewalls, back-ups, and anti-virus software; off-site backup of electronic and hard-copy records; and other measures that protect research records from unauthorized access, loss or modification.
17 For example: Canada’s Food and Drug Regulations require certain clinical trial records to be stored for twenty-five (25) years and research conducted in provincial hospitals may be subject to The Hospital Standards Regulations, 1980 (Saskatchewan).
18 Future use of research records may be subject to the provisions of applicable privacy legislation and/or the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS)  http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/tcps-eptc/readtcps-lireeptc   
19 http://www.sshrc.ca/site/apply-demande/policies-politiques/edata-donnees_electroniques-eng.aspx
20 http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/34846.html#8
21 http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/FinancialAdminGuide-GuideAdminFinancier/Responsibilities-Responsabilites_eng.asp
22 http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/FinancialAdminGuide-GuideAdminFinancier/Responsibilities-Responsabilites_eng.asp
23 Paper documents containing personal information should be burned, pulverized or shredded into very small shreds.  Erasing electronic files from a computer will not remove the information in that file from the computer.  Applications are available that provide for secure erasure and will remove the records.  When a computer is decommissioned, the disks must be erased using a secure disk erasure application or physically destroyed.