Policy Manual

Effective July 1, 2023, this policy has been revised. For individual changes, see the redlined version.

1. General. The University of Iowa exists primarily for expanding and disseminating knowledge. Therefore, research activities that are subject to indefinite suppression, censorship, or control by a body outside the University ordinarily are not conducted within the University. Where the advancement of science and other considerations, such as the proper protection of the proprietary rights of research sponsors, make restrictions on the access to research information unavoidable, such research activities may be permitted provided that public knowledge is available about the purposes of the research, the identity of the investigators, the amount and sources of funds to be expended, and the University facilities utilized in the research.
   
   Unless specifically excepted by the Vice President for Research, the contents of a funded proposal and related research outcomes will be available for inspection in accordance with II-27.3 below.
2. Policy on classified research. “Classified research” as used in this policy includes activities that contain a security classification from the federal government and activities that require the use of classified information and materials. Maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary information does not constitute classified research. Use of University facilities for the purpose of engaging in classified research by any faculty, staff, or student requires approval from the Vice President for Research. Agreements for the performance of classified research may be accepted if the following conditions are met:
   1. Approval is obtained from the Vice President for Research based on review of a written proposal from the principal investigator prior to any application for funding;
   2. Appropriate facilities, infrastructure, and administrative resources are available for the research; and
   3. The sponsors of the research provide funding towards costs associated with the security requirements of the research.
      
      If questions regarding the suitability of a project arise, the Vice President for Research may consult with other senior leadership or the University Research Council as deemed appropriate in reaching a decision.
3. Restrictions on research participation, access, and dissemination. Research conducted by faculty, staff, and students of The University of Iowa is public domain "fundamental research" as that term is defined in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189. When proposed University research involves information, technology, or other materials that are subject to applicable export control laws and regulations, thereby restricting dissemination of results and access to and participation in research activities by foreign nationals, acceptable language pertaining to the application of export control requirements must be negotiated with the sponsor prior to the University's acceptance of the award and conduct of the research.
   1. The conduct of research in compliance with applicable export control laws or regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), shall not be deemed to be in conflict with the University's limitations on conducting classified research.
   2. Compliance with federal select agent laws or regulations shall not be deemed to be in conflict with the University's limitations on conducting classified research.
   3. The acceptance of confidentiality restrictions on proprietary information if non-proprietary research results may be freely published shall not affect the status of any University research project as public domain fundamental research.
4. Protection of faculty, staff, and postdoctoral researcher rights. Activities that require restrictions on openness or academic freedom, including classified activities and export controlled research, may pose challenges for the process of granting promotion and tenure for faculty where publication limitations of research results exist. Probationary faculty should consult with their DEO or Associate Dean for Research to determine how classified research will be assessed for promotion and tenure. If there is agreement to proceed, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be developed to ensure that the faculty member is appropriately evaluated at the time of reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Staff and postdoctoral researchers involved in the research shall receive written notification that there may be an inability to publish work in the open literature.
5. Protection of student rights. No student may undertake a thesis or dissertation project that requires restrictions on openness or academic freedom, unless the Provost grants an exception to this policy. In such cases, the student’s mentor, committee, department/program, and the Dean of the Graduate College (for graduate students) or Provost (for other students) must confirm that the student understands the potential negative consequences these activities may have on the appearance of productivity and progress. This same group should determine in advance the criteria by which the student will satisfy requirements for the degree if the work is not available for assessment of its scholarly merit.
6. Restrictions. This policy statement should not be construed to restrict the activities of University personnel who provide private consulting or other professional services outside of their University responsibilities.  Such arrangements must be in accord with University policies on conflicts of interest and commitment and cannot involve the use of University resources or facilities, including the receipt or storage of classified materials on University property.
7. Responsibilities. Although it is the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President for Research to ensure that this policy on access to research information is enforced when negotiating grant or contract terms and conditions, it is also the responsibility of principal investigators to call to the attention of the Office of the Vice President for Research any restrictions of which they are aware in grant or contract clauses proposed by sponsors. If questions regarding a project's compliance with this policy arise, or if an investigator requests a waiver of this policy, the Vice President for Research will consult with the University Research Council and may also consult with other senior University administrators as they deem appropriate in reaching a decision.

 It is the general concern of the University that no research done under the jurisdiction of the University expose persons who participate as subjects or respondents to unreasonable risks to their health, general well-being, or privacy.

Specifically, the University is concerned that in all research and related activities involving the use of human subjects: 1) the rights and welfare of the individuals involved are adequately protected; 2) the participation of the subjects is based on freely given, legally effective informed consent; and 3) the risks to the subject are reasonable in relation to the sum of the benefit to the subject and the importance of the knowledge to be gained as to warrant a decision to allow the subject to accept these risks.

Therefore, all research and related activities involving the use of human subjects must be submitted for prior review by the appropriate University Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that the above conditions are met.

Primary responsibility for assuring that the rights and welfare of research subjects are protected continues to rest with principal investigators conducting the research. Others engaged in the conduct of the research share this responsibility. Teachers who assign or supervise research conducted by students have an obligation to consider carefully whether those students are qualified to adequately safeguard the rights and welfare of subjects.

The University has provided the federal government with a formal commitment to ethical and appropriate review and conduct of human subjects research in a document entitled "Federalwide Assurance of Protection for Human Subjects." The detailed University policy and procedures are described in a manual entitled "Investigator's Guide to Human Subjects Research." 

1. Policy. The University of Iowa is committed to maintaining a climate that promotes faithful attention to high ethical standards, that enhances the research process, and that does not inhibit the productivity and creativity of scholars. Instances of research misconduct are inconsistent with such a climate of integrity.
   
   Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
   
   When committed, research misconduct shatters individual careers, taints the conduct of objective research, undermines the credibility of scholarship, and destroys the confidence among scholars as well as between the University and the public.
   
   All researchers — faculty, staff, and students — must be unfailingly honest in their work, must refrain from deliberate distortion or misrepresentation, and must take regular precautions against the common causes of error. Steps to minimize the possibility of research misconduct include the following:
   1. Researchers must accept responsibility for the quality and integrity of the work reported by them and their collaborators; emphasis must be placed upon the quality and significance of research rather than on quantity and visibility;
   2. Consistent with II-27.10 University of Iowa Authorship Policy, only those who have had a genuine role in the research should be included in authorship of papers, and all named authors should accept responsibility for the quality and integrity of the work reported; and
   3. Researchers should retain research data and records for a period of at least five years following publication to provide verification of the validity of the reported results.
      
      Deterrents to research misconduct include the possibility that it will be quickly detected and exposed. The likelihood that falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized research will go unquestioned is small. Yet despite the self-correcting nature of research, instances of research misconduct do occur, and in these cases it is the obligation of faculty, staff, and students to report suspected instances of research misconduct to appropriate University officials.
2. Scope. This policy and the associated procedures apply to:
   1. The planning, conduct, reporting, and review of research, research training, and research-related activities (such as, for example, the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of research information), whether funded or not, and regardless of the source of any funding; and
   2. Any person engaged in the above who is employed by or has an official affiliation with The University of Iowa, including any faculty member, staff member, student, postdoctoral scholar, trainee, fellow, visiting scholar, adjunct faculty member, and guest or research collaborator working on campus with University resources.
3. This policy does not apply to authorship or collaboration disputes.
4. Definitions.
   1. "Allegation" means a disclosure of possible research misconduct made to the University through any means of communication.
   2. "Complainant" means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
   3. "Good faith" is defined as a belief in the truth of an allegation such as might be held by a reasonable person in the same circumstances and based on the information known at the time. An allegation is not made in good faith if it is made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate it.
   4. "Inquiry" means a preliminary review of an allegation to determine whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the definition of research misconduct is met and whether the allegation has sufficient substance to warrant an investigation.
   5. "Investigation" means the formal development of a factual record and examination of that record leading either to a recommended finding, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that research misconduct occurred or, based on that same standard, a recommended finding to the contrary.
   6. "Preponderance of the evidence" means proof by information that, after comparison with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely to be true than not. The University has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that research misconduct has occurred. The burden then shifts to the respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any affirmative defense.
   7. "Reporting Contact" means the branch of the federal funding agency sponsoring the research that is designated by federal regulation to receive information relating to research misconduct. For example, reports involving research funded by the U.S. Public Health Service are required to be sent to the PHS Office of Research Integrity; those involving the National Science Foundation are required to be sent to the NSF Office of Inspector General. "Reporting Contact" may also mean any other external sponsor of University research where reporting on research misconduct is required by contract.
   8. "Research" means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research).
   9. "Research misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
      1. "Fabrication" is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
      2. "Falsification" is 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.
      3. "Plagiarism" is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
   10. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
       
       A finding of research misconduct must meet this definition; must involve a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
   11. "Research record" means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, including, but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to the University by a respondent in the course of a research misconduct proceeding.
   12. "Respondent" means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed.
5. Procedures.
   1. Research Integrity Officer. The Vice President for Research (VPR) will appoint an institutional Research Integrity Officer (RIO), who is responsible for the implementation of this policy. The RIO must have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, to interview the parties and the witnesses, and to conduct the initial inquiry.
   2. Reporting allegations to the University. All members of the University community should report suspected research misconduct to the VPR or the RIO as soon as possible after it is believed to have occurred. Reports to the VPR are immediately reported to the RIO and vice versa. The RIO then notifies the Provost of the allegation, as well as the Associate Dean for Research from the respondent's college.
   3. RIO conflict of interest. At each stage of the process, the RIO will carry out their responsibilities without any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, the respondent, or any witness. Within 10 days of receipt of the notice of inquiry, the respondent may object in writing to the RIO's involvement based on a conflict of interest on the part of the RIO. Within 5 days of receipt of the objection, the VPR will determine whether to replace the RIO with a qualified substitute, who will carry out the RIO's responsibilities set forth in this policy.
   4. Confidentiality and fair treatment. To the extent allowed by law, the confidentiality of the complainant, the respondent, witnesses, and research subjects identifiable from research records or evidence will be protected and disclosure of their identity limited to those who need to know as part of their involvement with the research misconduct proceeding. Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in this manner unless to do so would compromise public health and safety or the effective completion of the inquiry or investigation. Any process prescribed under this policy will be conducted in a manner that ensures fair treatment of the respondent.
   5. Assessment of allegation. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether an inquiry is warranted. An inquiry is warranted only when an allegation is sufficiently credible and specific enough to identify conduct that presents an issue of potential research misconduct and thus falls within the scope of this policy.
   6. Inquiry. When the allegation is assessed to warrant initiation of an inquiry, the RIO will perform the inquiry for the purpose described above in paragraph c(4). Upon opening an inquiry, the RIO will provide written notice of the alleged misconduct and initiation of the inquiry to the respondent (and, in the case of sponsored research, the Principal Investigator where the PI is not the respondent). At the same time, the RIO will sequester all relevant records and any other evidence needed to conduct the inquiry. The RIO may elect to interview the complainant, the respondent, and any additional witnesses with possible information related to the allegation at hand. Where the RIO lacks sufficient specialized expertise, the RIO may consult with qualified experts in order to determine whether an investigation of the alleged misconduct is warranted. Any additional respondents identified during the inquiry process must also be promptly notified of their status.
   7. Inquiry report and recommendation. The RIO will produce a written inquiry report including:
      1. the name and position of the respondent;
      2. a description of the allegations of research misconduct;
      3. the source of research support, including identifying any grant or contract and any publications listing such support;
      4. a summary of the inquiry process used;
      5. a list of the research records reviewed;
      6. the basis for recommending that the alleged actions either warrant or do not warrant an investigation; and
      7. the RIO's recommendation as to whether an investigation is warranted and whether any other actions should be taken in the event an investigation is not recommended.
   8. Opportunity for comment. The RIO will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal. Within 14 calendar days or receipt of the draft report, the respondent will provide comments on the draft inquiry report to the RIO. Comments submitted by the respondent will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on those comments, the RIO may revise the report as appropriate.
   9. Inquiry timeline. The RIO will complete the inquiry and submit the written inquiry report and recommendation to the VRP for final institutional action within 60 calendar days of initiating the inquiry, unless the VPR determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period and approves an extension for good cause. In such cases, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for the extension, and the respondent must be notified of the extension.
   10. VPR decision and action on the inquiry report. The VPR will review the inquiry report and either approve or reject the recommendation of the RIO, stating in writing the reasons for that decision. In the course of this review, the VPR may also request additional information to assist in acting on the recommendation of the RIO.
   11. Notice to Reporting Contact. Where the VPR approves a recommendation for an investigation in a case involving federal funding, the RIO will notify the Reporting Contact for the relevant federal funding agency on or before the start of the investigation and will provide a copy of the inquiry report and the VPR's written decision to the Reporting Contact.
   12. Investigation. The investigation of a research misconduct allegation must be initiated within 30 calendar days of the VPR's decision that an investigation is warranted. The RIO shall notify the respondent in writing of the VPR decision prior to the start of the investigation. Before or at the time the notice is provided to the respondent, the RIO will also sequester any additional research records or evidence required to conduct the investigation not previously sequestered at the inquiry stage.
   13. Research Misconduct Committee Pool. The VPR shall maintain a representative pool of scholars, selected from the tenured faculty, the emeritus faculty, or equivalent rank research scientists, research engineers, and research/clinical faculty. Pool membership shall be by nomination by each college's respective Associate Dean for Research; pool members shall serve three-year terms.
   14. Research Misconduct Committee. The VPR shall appoint a Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) of seven scholars selected from the Research Misconduct Committee Pool, with no more than one member from any one college. Members of the RMC must have no actual or potential personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the complainant, the respondent, or any witnesses and should collectively possess an appropriate level of scientific expertise to competently evaluate the evidence of alleged research misconduct. The RIO attends meetings of the committee to assist the committee in its work.
   15. Notice to the respondent of committee composition. The RIO will notify the respondent of the RMC membership within 5 days. If the respondent submits a written objection to any member of the RMC, the RIO will determine whether a conflict or other circumstance exists such that a committee member's continued participation in the investigation would be improper or raise a perception of impropriety sufficient to require replacement of the challenged member with a qualified substitute from the RMC pool.
   16. Committee meetings. The RIO will convene the first meeting of the RMC to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality, for developing a specific investigation plan, and for ensuring a thorough and sufficiently documented investigation. The RMC will make and the University will maintain transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews.
   17. Use of consultants or content experts. Consultants or content experts may be used at the discretion of the RMC to provide information or specialized content knowledge, but should not be present during final committee deliberations and are not members of the committee.
   18. Investigation report. The RMC will prepare a written investigation report that:
       1. describes the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct;
       2. describes the source(s) of funding, if any;
       3. describes the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;
       4. describes the research record and the evidence reviewed, as well as any evidence sequestered but not reviewed; and
       5. states the committee's recommended findings relative to each allegation and explains the basis for each finding. Where the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct, the report will include recommendations for appropriate institutional actions, including, for example, whether any publications should be corrected or retracted, and will list any current support or known applications for support that the respondent has pending with any federal research sponsor.
   19. Opportunity for comment. The RMC will provide the respondent a copy of its draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 14 days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final investigation report. The report will take into consideration the respondent's comments in addition to all other evidence.
   20. Investigation timeline. An investigation by the RMC should be completed within 120 calendar days of initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the RMC. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft report available for comment, submitting the report to the VPR for final institutional action, and submitting the institution's final report to the Reporting Contact. If the RMC determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 120 days, the RIO will notify the VPR and submit to the Reporting Contact a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the Reporting Contact grants the request the RIO will file periodic progress reports on behalf of the committee as requested by the Reporting Contact.
   21. Institutional decision and action on investigation report. The RMC submits the final written report of its recommended findings to the RIO, who meets with the VPR to discuss the report. The VPR makes the final institutional decision whether to accept, modify, or reject the committee report recommendations.
       1. If the VPR accepts the RMC's recommendations without modification, the VPR's determination, together with the RMC's investigation report, constitutes the final institutional report for purposes of federal funding agency review.
       2. If the VPR's determination differs from the committee's recommendations, the VPR will explain in the institution's letter transmitting the RMC report to the Reporting Contact the detailed basis for reaching a conclusion different from the RMC's recommendations. The VPR's written explanation should be consistent with this policy and its definition of research misconduct and should be based on the evidence reviewed by the RMC to which the respondent has had an opportunity to respond.
   22. Notification. The respondent will be notified in writing at the conclusion of the investigation of its outcome and the respondent will be provided a copy of the institution's final investigation report.
       
       If the findings of the investigation warrant personnel or other administrative actions, the VPR will meet with the appropriate senior administrator who has oversight responsibility for the respondent's department/unit or the respondent's University classification (either the Executive Vice President and Provost or other vice president) and appropriate action will be initiated in accord with University policy as follows: In addition to the foregoing, the University may take other administrative actions appropriate to the outcome of the investigation. For example, in the case of a finding of research misconduct, the University may require the withdrawal of pending abstracts and publications emanating from the research, and give notice in sufficient detail to editors of journals in which previous abstracts and publications have appeared to inform the relevant academic and public communities and to correct the public record.
       1. Faculty. Research misconduct is in violation of III-15.3b Responsibilities to Scholarship concerning professional ethics and academic responsibilities, and all such matters are governed by III-29 Faculty Dispute Procedures and, more specifically, by the portion of the dispute procedures dealing with faculty research ethics (III-29.10).
       2. Professional and scientific staff. Disciplinary actions resulting from investigations of misconduct are taken by the vice president responsible for the unit employing the respondent staff member.
          
          Appeals from administrative actions involving professional and scientific personnel are governed by III-28 Conflict Management Resources for University Staff. 
       3. Merit staff. Disciplinary action resulting from investigations of misconduct involving merit staff personnel are taken in accordance with the Regent Merit System Rules, with applicable appeal procedures including III-28 Conflict Management Resources for University Staff.
       4. Graduate assistants. Disciplinary procedures, including dismissal of graduate assistants, is covered by III-12.4 Graduate Assistant Dismissal Procedure.
       5. Others. Disciplinary action related to other categories of individuals within the University, not covered in paragraphs (c) through (f) above, including postdoctoral trainees, professional students, and undergraduates, will be undertaken by the Executive Vice President and Provost or the vice president responsible for such individuals, as applicable.
   23. Notice to Reporting Contact of completion of investigation. Once the institution has accepted the investigation report and determined any administrative action(s) to be taken in response to it, the RIO is responsible for complying with any notice requirements of federal agencies funding the research. The University will comply with any actions required by the funding agency, including the obligation to make restitution for the funding, if applicable.
       
       The responsible vice president or Executive Vice President and Provost, as applicable, oversees any audits and corrective action that may be required as a result of the findings of the investigation.
   24. Finding of no research misconduct. If no investigation is warranted following an inquiry, or if the alleged misconduct is not substantiated by the finding of an investigation and the Reporting Contact concurs in that conclusion, the RIO will consult with the respondent and undertake all reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the VPR.
   25. Retaliation; reputation of complainant and others. Regardless of whether the institution or the Reporting Contact determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake all reasonable and practical efforts during the inquiry and/or investigation stages to protect complainants who make allegations of research misconduct in good faith, witnesses, and committee members. Those who make allegations with knowing or reckless disregard for their truth will be subject to discipline under applicable University policies.
       
       Upon completion of an investigation, the VPR will consult with the complainant and determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position and reputation of the complainant. The same process will also be followed to protect or restore the position and reputation of any witness or committee member, if needed. The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps the VPR approves.
   26. Circumstances requiring immediate reporting. The RIO will notify the Reporting Contact at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
       1. there is an immediate public health or safety hazard involved;
       2. there is an immediate need to protect sponsoring agency funds, interests, or equipment;
       3. research activities should be suspended;
       4. there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is/are the subject of the allegations, as well as their co- investigators and associates, if any;
       5. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly, so that the agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved;
       6. the research community or public should be informed (e.g., where the allegation involves a public health-sensitive issue such as a clinical trial); or
       7. there is a reasonable indication of possible violation of civil or criminal law. In this instance, the institution must inform the Reporting Contact within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
   27. Interim administrative actions and reports. Interim administrative actions will be taken, as appropriate, to protect federal agency funds and equipment and the public health, and to ensure that the purposes of the financial support from the federal agency are carried out.
       
       If the University of Iowa plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the applicable federal agency regulations (other than closing an inquiry because no investigation is warranted or a finding of no misconduct from a completed investigation), the RIO will submit a report of the planned termination to the Reporting Contact, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
       
       The RIO will report to the Reporting Contact as required by regulation and keep the Reporting Contact apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the federal agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
       
       The University will provide full and continuing cooperation with any federal funding agency during its oversight review of any alleged research misconduct or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals resulting from agency oversight review.
   28. Records. All records pertaining to an allegation of research misconduct shall be kept in accordance with the record-keeping requirements of the federal funding agency. 

1. Purpose. These guidelines provide information to whistleblowers on an appropriate method of submitting retaliation complaints and subsequent procedures for resolving the complaints.
   
   These guidelines apply to all instances of possible retaliation against whistleblowers who make allegations of research misconduct covered by the University of Iowa Policy on Ethics in Research (II-27.6).
2. Definitions.
   1.  "Adverse action" means any action taken by a member of The University of Iowa which negatively affects the terms or conditions of the whistleblower's status at the University, including but not limited to their employment, academic matriculation, awarding of degree, or University relationship established by grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
   2. "Allegation" means any disclosure, whether by written or oral statement, or any other communication, to a University, a governmental or other sponsoring agency official who receives the allegation while acting in their official capacity, that the University or member thereof has engaged in research misconduct.
   3. "Deciding official" means the official designated by the President of the University to make a final University determination as to whether retaliation occurred.
   4. "Good faith allegation" means an allegation of research misconduct made with a belief in the truth of the allegation which a reasonable person in the whistleblower's position could hold based upon the facts. An allegation is not in good faith if made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
   5. "Research misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data or creative innovations that are nonetheless ethical, legal and meet professional standards.
   6. "Responsible official" means the official designated by and reporting to the President of the University to establish and implement the University's anti-retaliation policy for reporting of misconduct in research.
   7. "Retaliation" means any adverse action or credible threat of an adverse action taken by the University, or member thereof, in response to a whistleblower's good faith allegation of research misconduct. It does not include the University's decision to investigate a good faith allegation of research misconduct.
   8. "University" means The University of Iowa.
   9. "University member, or member" means a person who is employed by, affiliated with under a contract or agreement, or under the control of the University. University members include but are not limited to faculty, students, administrators, teaching and support staff, researchers, clinicians, technicians, and fellows.
   10. "Whistleblower" means an individual who makes a good faith allegation of research misconduct or demonstrates an intent to make a good faith allegation (or what is perceived to be an allegation) while a member of the University at which the alleged research misconduct occurred.
3. Processing whistleblower retaliation complaints.
   1. Responsible official.
      1. The University has designated the University of Iowa Research Integrity Officer (RIO) the "Responsible Official" to establish and implement the University's Policy for Reporting Misconduct in Research. The Responsible Official also serves as a liaison between the University and the sponsoring agency, and will prepare and submit all reports to the research sponsor.
      2. The Responsible Official shall be free of any real or apparent conflicts of interest in any particular case.
      3. If involvement of the Responsible Official in a particular case creates a real or apparent conflict of interest with the University's obligation to protect good faith whistleblowers, and the conflict cannot be satisfactorily resolved for that case, the Vice President for Research shall appoint a substitute Responsible Official who has no conflict of interest.
   2. Notice of University policy. The University shall provide to all its members notice of its Anti-Retaliation Policy for Reporting of Misconduct in Research. The notice shall include the requirement set forth regarding a whistleblower's deadline for filing a retaliation complaint.
   3. Filing complaints.
      1. A whistleblower who wishes to receive the procedural protections described by these guidelines shall file their retaliation complaint with the Responsible Official within 180 days from the date the whistleblower became aware or should have become aware of the alleged adverse action. The University shall review and resolve all whistleblower retaliation complaints and should do so within 180 days after receipt of the complaint. If the whistleblower fails to receive a University response to the complaint in accordance with these Guidelines within ten working days, the whistleblower may file the retaliation complaint directly with the sponsoring agency.
      2. The retaliation complaint must include a description of the whistleblower's research misconduct allegation and the asserted adverse action, or threat thereof, against the whistleblower, by the University or its members in response to the allegation. If the retaliation complaint is incomplete, the Responsible Official shall describe to the whistleblower what additional information is needed in order to meet the minimum requirements of a complaint under this II-27.8c(3).
   4. Responding to complaints.
      1. Upon receipt of a whistleblower retaliation complaint, the Responsible Official shall notify the whistleblower of receipt within ten working days after receipt. The notice shall also inform the whistleblower of the process the University proposes to follow in resolving the retaliation complaint and the necessary actions by the whistleblower required under that process.
      2. The whistleblower may raise any concerns about the proposed process with the Responsible Official and the University may modify the process in response to the whistleblower's concerns.
      3. The whistleblower has five working days from the date of receipt of the initial notification in II-27.8c(4)(a) to:
         1. accept the proposed process, although the whistleblower may also submit documentation for the official record about any concerns they may have about the proposed process; or
         2. not accept the proposed process. If the whistleblower rejects the proposed process, they may pursue other remedies as provided by law.
      4. The University shall notify the sponsoring agency of any whistleblower retaliation complaint it receives within ten working days after receipt of the complaint.
   5. Interim Protection.
      1. At any time before the merits of a whistleblower retaliation complaint have been fully resolved, the whistleblower may submit a written request to the Responsible Official to take interim actions to protect the whistleblower against an existing adverse action or credible threat of an adverse action by the University or member.
      2. Based on the available evidence, the Responsible Official shall make a determination of whether to provide interim protections and shall advise the whistleblower of their decision in writing. Documentation underlying the decision whether to provide interim protections shall become part of the record of the complaint. When the whistleblower retaliation complaint is fully resolved, any temporary measure taken to protect the whistleblower shall be discontinued or replaced with permanent remedies.
4. Resolution of complaints.
   1. General.
      1. For each whistleblower retaliation complaint received, the University shall adhere to the process for resolving the whistleblower retaliation complaint, or settle the complaint, as described below.
      2. The process should be completed within 180 days of the date the complaint is filed, unless the whistleblower agrees to an extension of time. The University shall promptly report the final outcome of either process or any settlement to the sponsoring agency.
      3. If the whistleblower declines the University's proposed process according to these guidelines, they may pursue any other legal rights available to the whistleblower for resolution of the retaliation complaint. However, sponsors, including the federal government, may deem the University to have met its obligation under federal regulations and may not pursue the whistleblower complaint further.
   2. University investigation.
      1. The University shall conduct an investigation of the whistleblower retaliation complaint according to these Guidelines and implement appropriate administrative remedies consistent with the investigation's finding and University decision thereon.
      2. An investigation of whistleblower retaliation shall be timely, objective, thorough, and competent. The investigation should be conducted by a panel of at least three individuals appointed by the Responsible Official. The members of the investigation panel, who may be from outside the University, shall have no personal or professional relationship or other conflict of interest with the whistleblower or the alleged individual retaliator(s), and shall be qualified to conduct a thorough and competent investigation.
      3. The investigation shall include the collection and examination of all relevant evidence, including interviews with the whistleblower, the alleged retaliator(s), and any other individual who can provide relevant and material information regarding the claimed retaliation.
      4. The University shall fully cooperate with the investigation and use all available administrative means to secure testimony, documents, and other materials relevant to the investigation.
      5. The confidentiality of all participants in the investigation shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible throughout the investigation.
      6. To encourage and protect whistleblowers, it is University policy that no reference to good-faith reporting of University-related misconduct shall be made in personnel files, letters of recommendation, performance appraisals, or any other permanent evaluative documents without the concurrence of the whistleblower.
      7. The panel members shall evaluate and respond objectively to any concerns raised by the whistleblower about the process, including concerns regarding the selection of the Deciding Official, Responsible Official, and specific panel members, which are raised prior to resolution of the complaint.
      8. The conclusions of the investigation shall be documented in a written report and made available to the whistleblower. The report shall include findings of fact, a list of witnesses interviewed, an analysis of the evidence, and a detailed description of the investigative process.
      9. The Vice President for Research shall be the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official shall make a final University determination as to whether retaliation occurred. This decision shall be based on the report, the record of the investigation, and a preponderance of evidence standard. Appeals may be made to the University President and subsequently to the Board of Regents via the usual appeals process.
      10. If there is a determination that retaliation has occurred, the Deciding Official shall determine what remedies are appropriate to satisfy the University's obligation to protect whistleblowers. The Deciding Official shall, in consultation with the whistleblower, take measures to protect or restore the whistleblower's position and reputation, including making any public or private statements, as appropriate. In addition, the Deciding Official may provide protection against further retaliation by monitoring or disciplining the retaliator.
      11. The University shall promptly notify the sponsoring agency of its conclusions and remedies, if any, and forward the underlying investigation report to the sponsor.
      12. The University recognizes that the sponsoring agency may, at its own discretion, review the University report to determine whether the University has substantially followed the process described herein.
      13. University compliance with this process does not bar the whistleblower from seeking redress against the University's decision under state law, University procedure, rules of the Board of Regents, policy, or agreement, or as otherwise provided.
   3. Settlement. In lieu of the option described above, the University and whistleblower may, at any time after the retaliation complaint is made, enter into any binding settlement agreement which finally resolves the retaliation complaint. If both parties agree, the Responsible Official shall facilitate negotiation of such settlements. If such an agreement is reached, the University and the whistleblower shall sign a statement indicating that the retaliation complaint has been resolved. The University shall within 30 days send a copy of the signed statement to the sponsoring agency. The settlement may not restrict the whistleblower from cooperating with any investigation of an allegation of research misconduct.
5. University compliance. At any time a sponsoring agency may review the University's compliance with these guidelines to the extent that the University relies on these guidelines for regulatory compliance. The University and its members shall cooperate with any such review and provide the sponsoring agency access to all relevant records. If the University's procedures and implementation thereof substantially conforms to II-27.8c and II-27.8d above, it shall be deemed to have met its whistleblower protection obligation under federal regulations.