BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
10.1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY
I. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
This policy is promulgated by the Board of Trustees pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by §23-
41-104(1), C.R.S. (2008) in order to set forth a policy concerning the ownership and control of
intellectual property developed by CSM employees and students. This Policy shall supersede any
previously promulgated CSM policy that is in conflict herewith.
CSM recognizes that inventions and discoveries, and the patents, copyrights, know-how and trade secrets
accruing from these, may be the natural outgrowth of the academic activities and research of its faculty
members, employees, and students. CSM deems it desirable to secure control and ownership of this
intellectual property to fulfill its role and mission and to benefit the public through its technology transfer
For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions shal apply:
Intellectual Property Owned by CSM
This phrase shal refer to inventions, innovations, discoveries, methods, apparatus, know-how, designs,
models, distinct shapes, works of authorship (including computer software), any strains, varieties, or
cultures of an organism, or any portion, modification, improvements, translation, or extension of these
items which are made, devised, designed, conceived, formulated, developed, produced, invented, or
improved upon as part of the Inventor's employment relationship with CSM, or which bear upon or arise
out of the Inventor's activities for CSM or a contracting third party, or which are developed pursuant to
the Inventor's duties and obligations to CSM as an employee (including student employees), or developed
where CSM has the right to control the manner and means of production of an invention, innovation,
discovery, method, or apparatus. It also includes any marks used in connection with these. In this Policy,
the term “Intel ectual Property” shal refer to Intel ectual Property that must be disclosed to CSM by
employees and that is deemed to be owned by CSM.
Works that are specifical y commissioned through CSM by a third-party sponsor or by CSM wil be owned
by CSM, not the Inventor.
Intellectual Property Owned by the Employee-Inventor
This phrase shal refer to intel ectual property for which CSM wil not assert ownership, including works of
art that are made or valued primarily for artistic purposes rather than practical function (e.g., art objects,
literary works, musical compositions), academic instruction materials (e.g., course materials), or
traditional scholarly works (such as a scientific article published in a refereed journal, a monograph, a
book, a thesis, or a similar contribution to a collective work) that are authored by an employee within the
scope of employment, unless such works are produced as part of a sponsored program (e.g., as a
contracted-for research deliverable) or are works that are specifical y commissioned by CSM or another
While CSM shal not assert ownership over academic instruction materials, CSM wil retain a non-
exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free license to use, display, copy, distribute and prepare
derivative works of those materials created by employees in the course and scope of their employment at
CSM. Such materials may include video, audio, webpages, texts, graphics, simulations or other
CSM wil not assert ownership over intel ectual property created, conceived or first reduced to practice by
students solely for the purpose of satisfying degree requirements, unless (a) the student is performing
work under a third-party contract (sponsored research); (b) the student is a co-creator with a CSM
employee; (c) assignment of intellectual property is a course requirement; (d) CSM facilities, equipment,
or resources are used in a manner that is above and beyond what is normally and customarily provided
to students; (e) the student assigns ownership rights to CSM; or (f) the student creates the intellectual
property in the course and scope of their work and duties as either a CSM employee or a research or
In this policy, the term “Intel ectual Property” shal not refer to intel ectual property for which CSM does
not intend to assert ownership.
This term shal refer to any individual who makes, alone or jointly with others, a significant contribution
to the creation of an invention, innovation, discovery, method, or apparatus. Ultimately, if a patent
application is filed, and subsequently granted, the allowed claims wil dictate who is a named inventor
listed on a patent.
Use of CSM Facilities, Equipment or Resources
This phrase shal refer to any use of CSM laboratories, equipment, computers, personnel, or library
facilities that is more than incidental, or any use thereof that is essential to the creation of Intel ectual
This phrase shal refer to any research conducted by a CSM employee in fulfil ment of his or her
employment agreement with CSM and/or research using CSM Facilities, Equipment or Resources.
IV. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP PRINCIPLE
Intel ectual Property created within the scope of an Inventor's employment, or by anyone utilizing CSM
facilities while performing duties required by a third party contract, or made or done with the use of
funds supplied or administered by CSM, shal be the sole property of CSM, unless inconsistent with other
provisions of this Policy. Acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Policy is and shal be a condition
of employment for all CSM faculty, staff and student employees and a condition of engagement for any
student in a sponsored research project (e.g., as a contracted-for-research deliverable)..
CSM employees engaged in consulting or external business activities and those charged with approving
such activities on behalf of CSM are responsible for ensuring that any related agreements with external
entities are not in conflict with this Policy or other commitments involving CSM. Employees should make
their obligations to CSM clear to those with whom they make agreements and should provide other
parties to the agreement with a current statement of this Policy. The Director of Technology Transfer,
upon request, wil provide assistance in this regard. CSM's rights and the individual employee's
obligations to CSM that are set forth in this Policy are in no way abrogated or limited by the terms of such
agreements with third parties.
V. DISCLOSURE AND RECORDKEEPING
A. It shal be the responsibility and the duty of an Inventor to promptly notify the Director of
Technology Transfer in writing and make ful disclosure of any invention, discovery, innovation,
method, or apparatus which has potential value as Intel ectual Property.
B. It shal be the responsibility of any person working on a research or creative activity which might
give rise to Intellectual Property to keep periodic records of the activity in a bound notebook,
with each entry signed and dated by both the Inventor and a witness having specific knowledge
of both the activity and the academic discipline involved.
C. Unless required by the provisions of a third party contract pursuant to which Intel ectual Property
is created, no disclosure of Intellectual Property shall be made to any third party without the
prior approval of the Director of Technology Transfer, unless a formal release of rights to the
Intellectual Property has been executed by an officer of CSM or his or her delegate.
VI. FORMAL PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
A. In accordance with the procedures hereinafter set forth, CSM shal , after disclosure by an
Inventor, determine, in its sole discretion, whether and how to protect any Intellectual Property
subject to this Policy.
B. In the event that an application for patent, copyright or other form of protection is decided upon
and pursued, CSM shall have the right to prepare or have prepared, file, and prosecute such
application, and the Inventor shall provide full cooperation in such effort. The Inventor shall
execute such oaths, powers of attorney, petitions, affidavits, assignments of rights, and such
other documents as are necessary to prosecute such application, receive such patents (domestic
and foreign), and vest all right, title, and interest therein in CSM, subject to the preemptive
rights, if any, of third party contractors or sponsors.
VII. JOINT OWNERSHIP
In the event Intel ectual Property is created by a CSM Inventor and an Inventor from an outside entity
(e.g., another university, private company, or national laboratory):
A. Ownership of the Intel ectual Property shal be divided between CSM and the outside entity in a
proportion identical to the inventive contributions made by the respective parties. Any
commercial return from the Intel ectual Property shall be divided in the same proportion as
B. CSM shal have control over the filing and prosecution of any patent applications and other forms
of intellectual property protection as well as commercial exploitation of the Intellectual Property
unless an agreement to the contrary is negotiated by an officer of CSM or his or her delegate.
VIII. DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The Director of Technology Transfer shal be designated by the President of CSM and shal have the
fol owing duties and responsibilities for the implementation of this Policy under the general direction of
the Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer (VPRTT):
A. Receive al disclosures from Inventors of Intel ectual Property.
B. Process al disclosures of Intellectual Property as follows:
a. Conduct a reasonable investigation of the patentability and commercial potential of the
Intel ectual Property (with the assistance of legal counsel, if needed);
b. Make a decision within six (6) months as to whether to seek patent or copyright
protection based on scientific merit, patentability and commercial potential for the
Intel ectual Property, exploit the Intel ectual Property on a commercial basis without legal
protection, or waive all of CSM's property rights in the Intellectual Property; and
c. Communicate the decision to the Inventor.
C. Procure appropriate assignments from Inventors.
D. Administer the filing of patent applications, copyright and other forms of intel ectual property
E. Execute formal waivers of CSM's rights to any items of Intellectual Property that CSM has decided
not to pursue.
F. Administer the commercial use, licensing, or other disposition of all Intellectual Property in which
CSM possesses any title or interest.
G. Monitor previously filed patent applications and the maintenance of issued patents
H. Review and approve intel ectual property clauses and provisions in al agreements, grants, or
other documents or instruments that may concern or affect CSM.
I. Inform the Inventor(s) of the decision not to pursue or to abandon the application, and in such
cases provide the Inventor the opportunity to procure the Intel ectual Property from CSM by
assignment. Such assignment shall be made only if any conflicts that arise as the result of such
an assignment can be effectively managed. Such assignment wil also include a provision stating
that 5% of any revenues received through commercial exploitation of the Intellectual Property by
the Inventor(s) shal be returned to CSM.
J. Perform such other specific duties as may be reasonably implied from the terms and provisions of
K. Manage the enforcement or defense of any CSM Intel ectual Property rights.
IX. APPEAL PROCEDURE
A. In the event that the Inventor disagrees with the decision of the Director of Technology Transfer
not to pursue intellectual property protection, the Inventor may, within ten (10) business days of
receipt of the decision, appeal to the VPRTT for the appointment of a Patent and Discovery
Committee, hereinafter the "P & D Committee." The P & D Committee, which shal be appointed
by the VPRTT, shall consist of three (3) or more regular members of the CSM faculty who are
acceptable to both the Inventor and the VPRTT. Should the Inventor fail to appeal to the VPRTT,
the decision of the Director of Technology Transfer shal be final.
B. The duties of the P & D Committee shal consist of the fol owing:
a. Conduct an examination of all available information concerning the Intellectual Property;
b. Confer with the Inventor and the Director of Technology Transfer;
c. Consult with other faculty members, legal counsel or third party contacts in the field of
endeavor if necessary; and
d. Submit a recommended course of action to the VPRTT.
C. After considering the recommendation of the P & D Committee, the VPRTT shal issue a decision
on the appeal of the Inventor within ten (10) business days after receipt of the recommendation
from the P & D Committee.
D. If the Inventor disagrees with the decision of the VPRTT, the Inventor may appeal to the
President for a different course of action. In order to be considered, such an appeal must be
submitted to the President within ten (10) business days of the Inventor's receipt of the VPRTT’s
decision. Should the Inventor fail to appeal to the President, the decision of the VPRTT shall be
E. The President shal issue a final decision on the Inventor's appeal within ten (10) business days
of receipt of the appeal.
F. Any time limitation in this Section IX may be extended by the mutual agreement of the Inventor
X. EQUITIES OF PARTICIPATING PARTIES
A. Inventions Owned by CSM
This subsection is applicable to al Intel ectual Property Owned by CSM.
A. The Inventor shal assign al right, title, and interest in and to any such Intel ectual Property to
B. Net proceeds from the item of Intel ectual Property shal be calculated by subtracting the costs of
obtaining and maintaining a patent that are not reimbursed by the party(s) licensing the
technology, if any, and al other expenses of commercial exploitation from the gross proceeds.
These expenses shal first be returned to CSM prior to any further distribution of proceeds from
the Intel ectual Property.
C. Of the first thirty thousand dol ars ($30,000) in net proceeds (excluding reimbursement for
patent costs), fifteen thousand ($15,000) wil be distributed to the Inventor(s) and fifteen
thousand ($15,000) to the Office of Research and Technology Transfer for investment in
D. After the initial thirty thousand ($30,000) of net proceeds, any additional revenue wil be divided
as follows: 35% to the Inventor(s); 35% to the CSM general fund and 30% to either the CSM
academic department that is the home department(s) of the Inventor(s) or the research center
which funded the research, at the discretion of the Inventor(s).
E. Any revenue that CSM col ects that is designated in the agreement as reimbursement for past
and/or future patent costs shal not be included in net proceeds, but instead shal be provided to
the Office of Research and Technology Transfer for the purpose of funding CSM’s patent costs
related to the Intel ectual Property.
F. In the case of the death of a CSM Inventor, any revenue that is due the Inventor wil be
distributed to the Inventor’s heirs.
B. Inventions Jointly Owned by CSM and a Third Party
This subsection is applicable to Intel ectual Property in which the invention has at least one Inventor
employed by CSM and at least one Inventor employed by one or more outside entities.
A. A statement of ownership rights shal be an integral part of any sponsored research agreement
and such agreement must be properly executed prior to the initiation of any sponsored research
B. The rights to any Intel ectual Property resulting from any sponsored research shal be distributed
pursuant to the terms regarding intellectual property ownership rights contained in the written
agreement governing the sponsored research project. Such terms shal be consistent with
applicable federal and state laws.
C. The division of the revenues resulting from licensing or optioning jointly-owned inventions shall
be determined in accordance with the inventive contribution of all parties and according to any
subsequent commercialization agreement.
D. Revenue distributed to CSM shal be divided in the manner described in Section X.A of this Policy.
C. Intellectual Property Involving Several CSM Inventors
A. If an item of Intel ectual Property results from the joint efforts of two or more CSM Inventors,
they shal attempt to reach an agreement specifying a distribution of the compensation which
would normal y be paid to a single Inventor. This agreement shal be submitted in writing to the
Director of Technology Transfer at the time the Intel ectual Property is disclosed.
B. In the event an agreement cannot be reached between the Inventors, a Royalty Arbitration
Committee, consisting of at least three (3) regular members of the CSM faculty, shal be
appointed by the VPRTT. The CSM faculty members who wil serve on the Committee shall be
acceptable to both the Inventors and the VPRTT. The Royalty Arbitration Committee shall make a
recommendation to the VPRTT regarding an equitable distribution of royalties within ten (10)
C. After considering the recommendation of the Royalty Arbitration Committee, the VPRTT wil
render a decision on the appeal of the Inventors within ten (10) business days after receipt of
D. If the Inventors disagree with the decision of the VPRTT, the Inventors may appeal to the
President for a different course of action. In order to be considered, such an appeal must be
submitted to the President within ten (10) business days of the Inventor's receipt of the VPRTT’s
decision. Should the Inventors fail to appeal to the President, the decision of the VPRTT shall be
E. The President shal render a final decision on the Inventors’ appeal within ten (10) business days
of receipt of the appeal.
F. Any time limitation in this Section C may be extended by the mutual agreement of the Inventors
XI. Formation of Start-Up Companies
A. Grant of a License or Option to a Start-Up Company that Involves CSM Employees.
A. Should a CSM employee desire to form a private company based on an invention owned by CSM,
he or she shall inform the Director of Technology Transfer and submit to the Director a request
for a license from CSM to utilize the invention.
B. The Director of Technology Transfer shal determine the suitability of the invention in a start-up
company context, taking into consideration any conflict management needs and the legal and
practical aspects of utilizing the invention in this context.
C. If it is determined that a start-up company is a reasonable path forward, both the employee and
the start-up company shall develop a conflict management plan that must be approved by the
VPRTT and Provost, and implemented before the license agreement between the start-up
company and CSM can be signed.
B. Conflict and External Work Disclosure Requirements
A. CSM employees are required to disclose to CSM and obtain institutional approval prior to
engaging in any external commitments that may create a potential or actual conflict of interest
situation for the employee or CSM, pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Faculty Handbook. Should an
employee’s commitment to or involvement in a start-up company create an actual or apparent
conflict of interest, such conflict must be disclosed in a timely manner as outlined in Section
B. External work, including external employment, paid services, professional consulting and non-
remunerative external commitments must be disclosed and approved in advance of the
employee’s performance of such work pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Faculty Handbook. An
employee’s commitment to or involvement with an external start-up company (regardless of the
employee’s ownership interest in the company) must be disclosed and approved pursuant to
Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3.
C. Conflict Management Plans for Start-Up Companies
A. Conflict management plans shal be developed in concert with the Office of Research and
Technology Transfer and the Provost, with input from CSM’s Legal Services Office and CSM’s
Office of Research Administration, as appropriate. The terms of such plans shall be consistent
with applicable state and federal law, and CSM policy.
B. Conflict management plans shal address, but not be limited to, the fol owing: use of students in
company-sponsored research; the role of any students in the company; the disposition of any
new intellectual property developed; the anticipated time commitment required of CSM
employees in the company’s endeavors; and the anticipated use of CSM facilities in support of
the company’s work and operations.
C. CSM may require modifications to conflict management plans should new information arise or
situations change. The employee and company wil be required to sign and implement the new
conflict management plan. If either the employee or company fails to sign and effectively
implement the conflict management plan, CSM shall have the right to terminate the license or
option agreement. The Director of Technology Transfer, Provost and Legal Services Office wil
work in concert to develop any modifications to conflict management plans.
Promulgated by the CSM Board of Trustees on December 14, 1990.
Amended by the CSM Board of Trustees on June 5, 2009
Amended by the CSM Board of Trustees on May 5, 2017
10.2 SABBATICAL LEAVE POLICY
I. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
This policy is promulgated by the Board of Trustees pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by §23-
41-104(1), C.R.S. (1998) and in accordance with the requirements of §23-5-123, C.R.S. (1998) in order
to set forth a policy outlining the terms and conditions under which sabbatical leave and paid
administrative leave shall be granted to employees at CSM. This policy shall supersede any previously
promulgated CSM policy that is in conflict herewith.
II. POLICY STATEMENT
The Board is cognizant of the necessity of maintaining a high caliber of faculty at CSM and the
importance of the faculty's contribution in delivering quality education to CSM students. The Board
recognizes that faculty sabbaticals play an important role in developing and enhancing faculty expertise
and promoting faculty excel ence in teaching and research. The Board also recognizes that a faculty
sabbatical is a privilege, rather than a right, and should be granted only when it directly benefits CSM and
the education of its students. Therefore, the Board shal judiciously grant faculty sabbaticals which are
designed to foster teaching and/or research excellence at CSM and thereby result in a benefit to the State
The fol owing rules and procedures shal henceforth apply to the granting and administration of al
sabbaticals at CSM.
A. CSM may not authorize a sabbatical or an extended period of paid administrative leave for any
person holding an administrative position, except that it may, for a reasonable period of time,
authorize such employees to take paid administrative leave for disciplinary or investigative
reasons. Accordingly, administrative faculty members do not qualify for sabbaticals hereunder.
Due to the nature of their positions, research faculty members are likewise ineligible for
sabbaticals. The Board is aware that certain administrative positions at CSM are fil ed by tenured
academic faculty members whose status hereunder may be unclear. For the purposes of this
policy, an "administrative position" shall be defined to mean any position that does not require at
least fifty percent of total effort to be devoted to teaching and academic research.
B. CSM may not grant a sabbatical for any faculty member more than once every seven years. Prior
to beginning a first sabbatical, a tenured faculty member must have served in a ful -time, tenured
and/or tenure-track position for a period of six years, or an aggregate of twelve semesters. In
order to be eligible for a subsequent sabbatical, a faculty member must submit a report on
sabbatical activity (described in Paragraph I below), meet al other requirements associated with
sabbatical leave outlined in this Sabbatical Leave Policy, and serve CSM for six more years. Time
served by an academic faculty member in an administrative position shal count toward fulfil ment
of this time requirement. A sabbatical may not be granted to any faculty member serving on a
transitional appointment. CSM may delay for up to one academic year, the taking of a sabbatical
granted to a faculty member, when it determines that such delay is necessary to avoid significant
disruption to CSM operations and the delay wil advance the excellence of CSM’s delivery of
services. When CSM requires a delay in taking a sabbatical, the faculty member wil be eligible to
seek a grant of sabbatical for the seventh year fol owing the year in which CSM granted the prior
C. When applying for a sabbatical, a faculty member shal submit to his or her department head as
far in advance as possible a detailed sabbatical plan specifying: (1) how the sabbatical activity
wil result in the faculty member's professional growth, enhance the reputation of CSM and the
educational experience of CSM students and increase the overall level of knowledge in the faculty
member's area of expertise; and (2) the goals that the faculty member wil achieve while on
D. The department head shal review the sabbatical plan and forward the plan along with a
recommendation to grant or deny the sabbatical request to the Provost, hereinafter the
“Provost," within a reasonable time. The Provost shal review these documents and, if the
Provost approves the sabbatical request, forward the file to the President with his or her
recommendation within a reasonable time. The President shal review these documents and, if
the President approves the sabbatical request, forward the file to the Board along with his or her
recommendation for final approval.
E. All sabbaticals taken by CSM faculty shall require Board approval in advance. In considering a
sabbatical request, the Board shal consider the quality of the faculty member's proposed
activities while on sabbatical; the individuals who wil be involved in such activities; the benefits
to be received from such activities by the faculty member, CSM and CSM students; the hardship
imposed, if any, on the faculty member's colleagues or department if the sabbatical should be
granted; and the number of sabbaticals or requests for sabbaticals currently outstanding within
the department or area of expertise of the faculty member requesting a sabbatical.
F. If, due to serious and unforeseen circumstances, a faculty member becomes aware that he or
she wil be unable to fulfil the approved sabbatical goals during the sabbatical period, the faculty
member shal expeditiously consult with his or her department head and the Provost to establish
amended sabbatical goals for the remainder of the sabbatical period. If such circumstances
involve a personal or family il ness, sick leave may be substituted for the sabbatical, and in such
case, the faculty member's record wil not reflect the granting of sabbatical leave.
G. Compensation for faculty on sabbatical shal be provided on the fol owing basis: (1) 50% of the
academic year base salary plus 100% of the employer-provided benefits for a one-year
sabbatical; (2) 100% of the academic year base salary plus 100% of the employer-provided
benefits for a one-semester sabbatical.
H. A faculty member receiving paid sabbatical leave must return to full-time employment at CSM for
at least one year after the conclusion of the sabbatical. A faculty member who does not fulfil
this condition wil be required to repay the ful amount of compensation (salary plus employer-
provided benefits) received from CSM during the sabbatical period.
I. Upon completion of a sabbatical, the faculty member shal submit a final sabbatical report to the
Board, including a summary of his or her activities while on sabbatical and the benefits derived
by the faculty member. Final sabbatical reports need not include specific details of the faculty
member's research conducted while on sabbatical. A faculty member may also be requested to
make a brief oral presentation of his or her completed sabbatical to the Board.
J. The Provost shal review the sabbatical plan and the final sabbatical report prior to its submission
to the Board, and certify in writing whether or not the faculty member has met the goals stated
in the plan.
K. The Board may not grant a subsequent sabbatical to any faculty member who does not meet the
goals or amended goals stated in his or her sabbatical plan.
L. Every participant in the sabbatical process shal be responsible for ensuring that each sabbatical
granted by CSM meets the requirements of §23-5-123, C.R.S. (1998) and this policy. Any
employee involved in applying for, reviewing or approving a sabbatical at CSM who acts in bad
faith or in a wil ful and wanton manner may be subject to disciplinary sanctions if the above-
mentioned requirements are not met.
Promulgated by the CSM Board of Trustees on September 9, 1994.
Amended by the CSM Board of Trustees on December 16, 1994.
Amended by the CSM Board of Trustees on June 10, 1999.
10.3 RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
This policy is promulgated by the Board of Trustees pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by §23-
41-104(1), C.R.S. (2013), to set forth a policy to assure integrity in research and the proper reporting
and resolution of complaints alleging research misconduct at CSM. This policy reflects CSM’s intent and
commitment to foster a research environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, and
requires adherence to the highest standards of integrity in the proposing, conducting and reporting of
research. As a recipient of federal research funds, CSM must have institutional policies and procedures in
place to handle allegations of research misconduct. The following policy and procedure conform to
pertinent federal regulations, including the Public Health Service (PHS) regulations at 42 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 93. While 42 CFR 93 applies to al individuals who may be involved with a project
supported by or who have submitted a grant application to the PHS, this policy and procedure apply to all
members of CSM’s community engaged in research, regardless of the funding source.
A. General Policy Statement
Misconduct in research represents a breach of the policies of CSM, the standards expected by our
research sponsors and entrusted to us by the public, and the expectations of scholarly communities
for accuracy, validity and integrity in research. Such misconduct tarnishes the reputations of honest
researchers and universities, as well as diminishes public confidence in research results. Any
allegation of research misconduct is, therefore, a matter of serious concern to this institution. The
highest standards of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior are expected of all CSM personnel and
students involved in research and scholarly activity. Further, maintenance of public trust in these
standards is the responsibility of al members of the university community, including faculty,
administrators, staff members, and students. CSM wil maintain an environment that fosters
adherence to the ethical standards set forth in this policy, and provides effective means for
addressing deviations from these standards.
All CSM personnel and students involved in research and scholarly activity are subject to this policy,
and expected to be aware of and to comply with all of CSM’s applicable policies and procedures, as
wel as the requirements and regulations of outside funding agencies. This policy wil specifical y
address research misconduct, which is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other
significant departures from commonly accepted practices within the relevant research community in
proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. CSM wil properly
assess, inquire into and, if necessary, investigate and resolve promptly and fairly all allegations of
research misconduct, and comply with research sponsor requirements for reporting al egations of
possible research misconduct. When sponsored project funds are involved, CSM wil comply within a
time frame consistent with applicable regulations and funding agency requirements for reporting
cases of possible misconduct.
Any member of CSM’s community has an ethical responsibility to act if he or she suspects research
misconduct has occurred. Appropriate actions may include discussing concerns with or reporting
allegations to one’s Department Head or Dean, or CSM’s Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”), Vice
President for Research and Technology Transfer (“VPRTT”) or Provost. Further, members of CSM’s
community are obligated to cooperate with and provide evidence relevant to an allegation of
research misconduct to appropriate university officials and employees who are directed to conduct
an inquiry or investigate such al egations.
CSM’s inquiry and investigative process shal include expeditious fact-finding and objective peer
review in a setting of appropriate due process that is characterized, at a minimum, by prompt
notification to the individuals whose behavior is the subject of a complaint, protection of the rights
of all participants, and the imposition of appropriate sanctions for policy violations. In the event it is
determined that research misconduct has occurred, appropriate sanctions may include, but are not
limited to one or more of the following: oral or written reprimand; removal from the subject project;
monitoring of future work; probation; suspension; salary or rank reduction; termination of
employment or appointment; or expulsion. Since a charge of misconduct, even if unsubstantiated,
may damage an individual’s career, any such charge must be resolved in a prudent and circumspect
manner, consistent with the duty to thoroughly and fairly resolve each complaint. Retaliation in any
form shall not be permitted against an individual who has filed a complaint in good faith or
cooperated in the investigation of a complaint hereunder.
The policy and procedure hereunder are intended to satisfy CSM’s responsibilities under the Federal
Research Misconduct Policy and related regulations, codified at 42 CFR Part 93. This document,
however, applies to all individuals engaged in university research and scholarship at CSM, regardless
of the funding source. Further, CSM’s policy and complaint procedure apply only to research
misconduct that is al eged to have occurred within six years of the date CSM or the funding agency
received the al egation, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and exceptions
in 42 CFR § 93.105(b).
For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply, and terms used have the same
meaning as given them in the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct and pertinent federal
regulations, codified at 42 CFR Part 93.
A. Research Personnel
Any persons who are employed by, are agents of, or are affiliated by contract, agreement or, in the
case of students, enrol ment status with CSM, and who are engaged in or have a role in conducting,
executing or documenting research and research training activities, regardless of whether the source
of support is provided through a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or internally.
B. Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other serious deviation from
commonly accepted practices within the relevant scientific community for proposing, performing or
reviewing research, or in reporting research results. To find research misconduct, a preponderance
of the evidence must show that there was a significant departure from accepted practices of the
relevant research community and that it was committed intentional y, knowingly or recklessly.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion.
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or
omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate
F. Significant Departure from Accepted Practices
Significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community includes, but is
not limited to:
● Abusing confidentiality, including the use of ideas and preliminary data gained from
access to privileged information through the opportunity for editorial review of
manuscripts submitted to journals, and peer review of proposals being considered for
funding by agency panels or internal committees;
● Stealing, destroying or damaging the research property of others with the intent to alter
the research record; and
● Directing, encouraging or knowingly al owing others to engage in fabrication,
falsification or plagiarism.
Refers to an individual who submits a written or oral al egation of research misconduct.
Refers to the individual against whom an al egation of research misconduct is directed or the
individual whose actions are the subject of an inquiry or investigation.
I. Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
Refers to the institutional official appointed by the Vice President for Research and Technology
Transfer who has primary responsibility for assuring adherence to the procedures defined in this
policy and any other CSM procedures adopted to implement this policy.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
The VPRTT wil appoint the RIO, who has primary responsibility for assuring compliance with the
procedures of this policy and any other CSM procedures adopted to implement it. With regard to
research misconduct proceedings, the RIO’s responsibilities general y include the following:
● Consults confidential y with persons uncertain about whether to submit an al egation of
● Receives al egations of research misconduct, and assesses each al egation in accordance
with this policy to determine whether it fal s within the definition of research misconduct
and warrants an inquiry;
● As necessary, takes interim action and notifies the federal Office of Research Integrity
(“ORI”) of special circumstances, in accordance with this policy;
● Sequesters research data and evidence pertinent to the al egation of research
misconduct and maintains it securely in accordance with this policy and applicable law
● Provides confidentiality to those involved in the research misconduct proceeding as
required by 42 CFR § 93.108, other applicable law, and institutional policy;
● Supports and facilitates the inquiry and investigation processes outlined in this policy;
● Serves as liaison, as appropriate and necessary, among the committee members, the
complainant, and the respondent;
● Educates respondents, complainants, witnesses and committee members about CSM’s
process for research misconduct proceedings;
● Facilitates appointment of the members of the inquiry and investigation committees,
ensuring that those committees are properly staffed and that there is expertise
appropriate to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the evidence;
● Keeps the VPRTT and others who need to know apprised of the progress of the review of
the al egation of research misconduct;
● Notifies and makes reports to federal oversight and funding agencies, including the ORI
as appropriate and as required by 42 CFR Part 93;and
● Ensures that administrative actions taken by the institution and the ORI are enforced.
The complainant is responsible for making al egations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality,
and cooperating with the inquiry and investigation. Al egations may be reported orally or in
writing. The complainant wil have the opportunity to submit evidence to the inquiry and
investigation committees. The complainant also has the opportunity, if requested by an inquiry
committee, to appear before the committee. The complainant wil be given the opportunity to be
interviewed by and present evidence to the investigation committee. If the RIO or committees
determine that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information or clarification to
any portion of the committees’ draft reports, these portions may be given to the complainant for
comment. The complainant wil be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation.
The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of
an inquiry and investigation. The respondent is entitled to:
Timely, written notification of the decision to convene an inquiry and the research
misconduct al egation;
An opportunity to comment on the inquiry report and have his/her comments attached
to the report;
Be notified of the outcome of the inquiry, and receive a copy of the inquiry report that
includes a copy of the institution’s policy and procedures on research misconduct;
Timely, written notification of the decision to proceed with an investigation, and the
allegations to be investigated, including any new allegations not addressed in the
Be interviewed during the investigation, have the opportunity to correct the recording or
transcript of the interview, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in
the record of the investigation;
Have interviewed during the investigation any witness who has been reasonably
identified by the respondent as having information on relevant aspects of the
Have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft investigation report, and
have his/her comments attached to this report.
If not found to have committed research misconduct, the opportunity to request
reasonable and practical assistance from CSM in restoring his or her reputation.
The respondent may admit that research misconduct occurred and that he or she committed the
research misconduct. In this event, and upon consultation with the RIO and/or other institutional
officials, as appropriate, the VPRTT may terminate the institution’s review of an allegation that has
been admitted. The institution’s acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement or
resolution may be subject to and conditioned upon the approval of federal oversight and funding
agencies, as appropriate and required by federal law or policy.
D. Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer (VPRTT)
The VPRTT ensures the ultimate implementation of this policy and related procedures through the
RIO, and is responsible for the dissemination of the policy to the members of the community involved
in research on behalf of CSM and promoting the responsible conduct of research, consistent with the
standards set forth in this policy. As appropriate, the VPRTT consults with the Provost, the RIO, and
the relevant Deans and Department Heads when receiving and assessing al egations of research
misconduct. The VPRTT ensures that appropriate review procedures are promptly implemented by
the RIO when al egations of research misconduct are reported, and the VPRTT receives the final
reports of the inquiry and investigation committees, and any written comments provided by the
respondent. The VPRTT provides recommendations to the Provost relative to the results of research
misconduct investigations. Working with the RIO, the VPRTT shal ensure that the final investigation
report, the decision of the Provost, and a description of any pending or completed administrative
actions are provided to applicable federal oversight and funding agencies, including the ORI, as
required by 42 CFR § 93.315.
As appropriate, the Provost may be involved in consultations with the VPRTT and the relevant Deans
and Department Heads in receiving and assessing allegations of research misconduct, and receiving
the results of research misconduct investigations. The Provost issues a written decision following
receipt of the final investigatory committee report and the VPRTT’s recommendation. In the event of
a final determination of research misconduct, the Provost may impose appropriate sanctions. The
Provost’s decision stands as the institution’s final decision regarding the research misconduct
F. Deans and Department Heads
The Deans and Department Heads ensure implementation of this policy and procedure in their
respective col eges and departments. The Deans and Department Heads report knowledge of
allegations of research misconduct to the Provost, VPRTT or RIO. The Deans and Department Heads
also help ensure the cooperation of respondents and other individuals in their respective units
regarding inquiries and investigations related to allegations of research misconduct, including, but
not limited to the sequestration and protection of research records and/or other information and
evidence relevant to the al egations.
G. Research Personnel
Research Personnel are responsible for maintaining the highest ethical standards in proposing,
performing, and reviewing research, and in reporting research results. Principal investigators are
specifical y responsible for: (a) assuring that these standards and the requirements of this policy
and procedure are communicated to and understood by all who work under their supervision,
directly or indirectly; (b) assuring the validity of all information communicated by their research
groups; and (c) assuring appropriate citation of contributions from all deserving individuals both
within and outside their research groups. Co-authorship shall reflect actual scientific involvement in
and responsibility for work reported.
PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
A. General Provisions
1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
All members of CSM’s community must report observed, suspected, or apparent research
misconduct to their Department Head, Dean, RIO, VPRTT or Provost. If reports of suspected
research misconduct are made to the Deans or Department Heads, the Deans and Department
Heads must communicate such reports to the RIO, VPRTT or Provost.
If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident fal s within the definition of research
misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected research
misconduct informal y. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the
definition of research misconduct, the RIO may refer the individual or allegation to other offices
or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem, as necessary and appropriate. CSM wil
protect those individuals who provide information in good faith about questionable conduct
against reprisals and retaliation.
2. Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings
Individuals covered by this policy and its implementing procedures must cooperate with the RIO
and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and conduct of inquiries and
investigations. Employees, students, and university appointees, including respondents, have an
obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO or other
institutional officials. The RIO or other institutional officials may determine whether it is
necessary to sequester original research records and materials relevant to such allegations.
Throughout the process of responding to an al egation of research misconduct, al persons
involved, including the RIO, committee members, complainant, respondent, and witnesses, shal
exercise great care to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings to the extent consistent
with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as al owed
by law. Applicable laws and regulations may require CSM to disclose the identity of respondents
and complainants to federal oversight and funding agencies.
Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members
The RIO shal monitor the treatment of individuals who bring al egations of research misconduct
and those who cooperate with or participate in inquiries and investigations. These individuals are
not to be retaliated against in employment or other status at the institution, and the RIO shal
review instances of al eged retaliation for appropriate action. Individuals should immediately
report any al eged or apparent retaliation against complainants, witnesses or committee
members to the RIO, who shal review the matter and immediately make reasonable and
practical efforts, as appropriate, to address any potential or actual retaliation, and to protect and
restore the position and institutional reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is
directed. Consistent with federal regulations and its own business practices, CSM wil make
reasonable and practical efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those individuals who
make al egations in good faith.
Protecting the Respondent
During the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that respondents
receive al the notices and opportunities provided for in 42 CFR Part 93, and a copy of CSM’s
relevant policy and procedures. As requested and appropriate, the RIO and other institutional
officials shall make reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the institutional
reputations of persons al eged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no
finding of research misconduct is made.
6. Legal Counsel
Upon request, attorneys from the CSM Office of Legal Services and/or the Colorado Attorney
General’s Office shal provide legal advice to the RIO, VPRTT and Provost, as wel as procedural
advice to the inquiry committee and investigation committee. Neither the university nor the
respondent may have legal counsel present at meetings or interviews conducted by the inquiry
and investigation committees, except at the express invitation of the committees. Should legal
counsel be invited, the invitation wil be extended to both parties. When invited, legal counsel
may observe, but shal not participate in the proceedings. With the prior approval of the
committees, the respondent may be accompanied by a non-attorney colleague at meetings of the
committees. When invited, the non-attorney colleague may observe but shall not participate in
7. Requirements for Research Misconduct Findings
A finding of research misconduct requires:
● There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research
● The research misconduct be committed intentional y, knowingly, or recklessly; and
● The al egation of misconduct be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
8. Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying ORI of Special Circumstances
Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO wil review the situation to determine if
there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the
sponsored research process. In the event of such a threat, the RIO wil , in consultation with
other institutional officials and the ORI, as appropriate, take interim action to protect against any
such threat. Interim action may include, but is not limited to any of the fol owing: additional
monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment;
reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and
equipment; additional review of research data and results; and delaying publication. The RIO
shal , at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify ORI immediately if there is
reason to believe that any of the fol owing conditions exist:
● Public health or safety is at risk;
● Federal agency resources or interests are threatened;
● Research activities should be suspended;
● There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
● Federal action is required to safeguard evidence or protect the interests of those involved
in the research misconduct proceeding; or
● The research community or public should be informed.
9. Impact of Termination of Employment
Once the review of a research misconduct al egation has begun, the termination of the
respondent’s university enrollment, employment or appointment, by resignation or otherwise, will
not terminate CSM’s research misconduct proceeding. Assessment, inquiry and investigation of
the al eged misconduct wil continue until a final determination is made, consistent with the
10. Malicious or Bad Faith Complaints
Making unfounded al egations of research misconduct that are motivated by malicious intent or
bad faith violates the principles of integrity and ethical behavior that are the foundation of this
policy and procedure. CSM may impose appropriate sanctions, including, but not limited to
disciplinary action, against a complainant whose allegations are found to have been made in bad
faith or with malicious intent, and without reasonable basis in fact and honest belief for making
B. Preliminary Assessment of Research Misconduct Allegations
Research misconduct al egations should be promptly reported to the RIO, regardless of which
university personnel initially receive the allegations. Al egations may be communicated orally or in
writing. Upon receiving a report of such an al egation, the RIO wil consult in confidence with the
VPRTT, Provost, Deans, Department Heads or other university personnel, as appropriate and
applicable, to determine whether the allegation meets CSM’s definition of research misconduct,
which is consistent with 42 CFR § 93.103. As part of the initial assessment, the RIO wil also
determine the appropriate roles and responsibilities of CSM, CSM personnel, and external
oversight agencies with respect to evaluating the allegations, and identify individuals, information
and data relevant to the allegation. This initial assessment should be completed within 10 days of
the RIO’s receipt of the al egations, except in circumstances out of the ordinary.
2. Determination to Conduct an Inquiry
If, after assessing the al egation, the RIO determines that the al egation warrants further action
and meets the definition of research misconduct as defined in this policy, the RIO wil initiate the
inquiry process outlined below. As part of the preliminary assessment process, the RIO is not
required to interview the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond
any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether
the al egation is sufficiently credible and specific.
3. Determination to Dismiss an Allegation
If, after assessing the al egation, the RIO determines that the al egation does not warrant further
action and/or does not meet the definition of research misconduct as defined in this policy, the
RIO, in concurrence with the VPRTT, wil formal y dismiss the al egation. In this circumstance, the
RIO need not notify the respondent of such al egation or the disposition of same. However, the
RIO must notify the complainant in writing that the allegation wil not be pursued under CSM’s
Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure.
C. Conducting the Inquiry
1. Purpose of the Inquiry
If, based on the preliminary assessment, the RIO determines that an inquiry is appropriate, he or
she wil immediately initiate the inquiry process. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an
initial review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. An
inquiry does not require a full review of all of the evidence related to the allegation.
2. Time Limitations
The inquiry committee should be convened within 30 days of the determination that an inquiry is
appropriate. The inquiry process, including the final report and decision regarding whether an
investigation is warranted, should be completed within 60 days of convening the inquiry
committee, except in circumstances out of the ordinary.
Sequestration of Research Records and Evidence
Once the determination is made to convene an inquiry, the RIO must take al reasonable and
practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the
research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a
secure manner. Where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared
by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such
instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the
instruments. Research records and evidence wil be sequestered in a manner that causes minimal
disruption to non-related research activities.
Within 10 days of the determination to convene an inquiry, the RIO wil notify the respondent of
the allegation in writing. The notification to the respondent wil include: the specific allegation(s);
the rights and responsibilities of the respondent; the role of the inquiry committee; a description
of the inquiry process; and a copy of CSM’s Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint
Appointment of Inquiry Committee
The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, wil appoint an inquiry
committee as soon after the initiation of the inquiry as is practical. The committee wil consist of
three ful -time, tenured faculty members who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or
financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry. At least two of the members
must have the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the
6. Responsibilities of Inquiry Committee
The inquiry committee is responsible for determining whether the al egation of research
misconduct warrants an investigation based on an initial review of the available evidence. The
inquiry committee may also identify issues that would justify broadening the scope of the
misconduct proceeding beyond the specifics of the initial al egation. The inquiry committee is not
responsible for making a final determination based on the merits of the al egation. The inquiry
committee has access to any and all evidence relevant to the allegation of research misconduct,
and may interview the complainant, respondent, and/or others, if necessary and appropriate. The
committee wil determine whether an investigation is warranted based on its initial review of the
available evidence, and summarize its findings and recommendations in a written report to the
VPRTT. The inquiry, including the final report and decision regarding whether an investigation is
warranted, should be completed within 60 days of the date that the committee is convened,
except in circumstances out of the ordinary.
Charge to the Inquiry Committee
The RIO wil provide the charge to the inquiry committee, which includes:
● Distribution of copies of the CSM Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure;
● Purpose of the inquiry;
● Definition of research misconduct;
● Specific timeframe for completion of the inquiry;
● Description of the al egations and any related issues identified during the al egation
● Identification of the respondent; and
● Responsibilities of the inquiry committee, including:
o Election of committee chair;
o Initial review of evidence;
o Interviews of complainant, respondent and others, if deemed necessary and
o Determination that an investigation is warranted if the committee finds: (1) there is a
reasonable basis for concluding that the al egation fal s within the definition of research
misconduct; and (2) the al egation may have substance, based on the committee’s
review during the inquiry; and
o Preparation of a final, written report.
The RIO wil be available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.
The inquiry committee wil examine relevant research records and materials, and may interview
the complainant, respondent, and key witnesses. Any interviews wil be recorded or transcribed
and provided to the interviewee for correction. The committee wil then evaluate the evidence,
including the testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the RIO, the
committee members wil decide whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in
this policy and 42 CFR § 93.307(d). The scope of the inquiry is not required to and does not
normally include a final determination as to whether research misconduct occurred. However, if
a legally sufficient admission of research misconduct is made by the respondent, misconduct may
be determined at the inquiry stage if all relevant issues are resolved. In that case, the institution
shal promptly determine the next steps that should be taken, consulting with external oversight
agencies as needed and appropriate.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry committee wil prepare a written report of its findings
and recommendations. The required elements of this report are:
● Names of committee members;
● Name and title/position of respondent;
● Description of the al egations of research misconduct;
● A summary of the inquiry process utilized;
● Inventory of evidence reviewed;
● If federal funds are involved, identification of grant numbers, applications, contracts and
publications that list PHS or other federal support;
● Basis for the committee’s recommendations for each al egation; and
● Any comments on the draft report by the respondent.
Notification to the Respondent and Opportunity to Comment
The RIO shal notify the respondent as to whether the inquiry found an investigation to be
warranted, and include a copy of the draft inquiry report. The respondent has the opportunity to
review and provide comment on the draft committee report. Any comments must be provided
within 10 days of receipt of the draft report. The inquiry committee will consider the comments of
the respondent and may revise the draft report as appropriate. Any written comments provided
by the respondent must be attached to the final inquiry committee report. The final inquiry
committee report with all attachments must be submitted to the VPRTT and RIO.
Upon review of the inquiry committee’s report and any attachments, the VPRTT wil make a
written determination as to whether the al egation should be dismissed or an investigation of the
allegation is warranted. The VPRTT’s decision is final and not subject to appeal. If the decision is
to proceed with an investigation, the VPRTT wil direct the RIO to initiate the investigation
The VPRTT wil notify the respondent in writing regarding the VPRTT’s decision on whether to
proceed with an investigation, and wil include a copy of the final inquiry committee report with
all attachments. The VPRTT wil direct the RIO to provide written notification to the Provost,
affected Deans and Department Heads, and complainant regarding the results of the inquiry and
the decision on whether to proceed with an investigation.
Disposition of Inquiry Record
If the VPRTT determines that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shal secure and
maintain for seven (7) years after the termination of the inquiry sufficiently detailed
documentation of the inquiry to permit a subsequent assessment by an external oversight agency
or other reviewing body of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted. If the VPRTT
determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO wil forward all of the information
assembled in the course of the inquiry to the investigatory committee for use in its investigation.
D. Conducting the Investigation
Purpose and Time Limitations
Once the VPRTT determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO wil be directed to initiate
the investigation process. The purpose of the investigation is to determine, based on a
preponderance of evidence, whether research misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine
the responsible person(s), and the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. The investigation
committee should be convened within 30 days of the determination to initiate an investigation.
The investigation process, including the final report and findings for each al egation, should be
completed within 120 days of convening the investigation committee, except in circumstances
out of the ordinary.
2. Sequestration of Research Records
The RIO wil take al reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a
secure manner al research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct
investigation not previously sequestered during the inquiry process.
Within 10 days of the determination to convene an investigation, the RIO wil formal y notify the
respondent in writing of the institution’s decision to convene an investigation, including the
● The specific al egation(s);
● The rights and responsibilities of the respondent;
● The role of the investigation committee;
● The investigation process timeline; and
● A copy of CSM’s Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint
If required in any research award documentation or pursuant to federal regulation, the RIO wil
also notify appropriate federal funding and oversight agencies in writing of the decision to
proceed with an investigation within 30 days of the determination that an investigation is
warranted. This notification wil include a copy of the inquiry committee report and other
information and references as required by relevant federal regulation or oversight agencies.
Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, wil appoint an
investigation committee as soon after the initiation of the investigation as is practical. The
investigation committee will consist of three full-time, tenured faculty members who do not have
unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the
investigation. At least two of the committee members must have the appropriate scientific
expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the al egation. When necessary to
secure the necessary expertise or to avoid conflicts of interest, the RIO may select committee
members from outside the institution.
5. Responsibilities of Investigation Committee
The investigation committee is responsible for conducting a thorough review of all facts and
evidence relevant to the investigation to determine, based on a preponderance of evidence,
whether research misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and
the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. The investigation committee may also identify, in
the course of its duties, issues that would justify broadening the scope of the misconduct
investigation beyond the initial allegation. The investigation committee must interview the
complainant, respondent, and any other available persons who have been reasonably identified
as having information relevant to the investigation. Interviews wil be recorded or transcribed and
provided to the interviewee for correction. The investigation committee shal make a finding for
each al egation, determining whether research misconduct occurred, by whom and to what
extent, taking into account that a finding of research misconduct requires: a preponderance of
evidence; a significant departure from accepted practices in the relevant scientific community;
and that the research misconduct must have been committed intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly. The investigation committee shal summarize its findings and recommendations in a
written report to the VPRTT. The investigation, including the final report and findings for each
allegation, should be completed within 90 days of convening the investigation committee, except
in circumstances out of the ordinary.
6. Charge to the Committee
The RIO wil provide the charge to the investigation committee, which includes:
● Distribution of copies of the CSM Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure;
● Purpose of the investigation;
● Definition of research misconduct and requirements for findings of misconduct;
● Timeframe for completion of the investigation;
● Description of the specific al egation(s) to be investigated and related issues identified
during the inquiry process;
● Identification of the respondent(s); and
● Responsibilities of the investigation committee, including:
o Election of a committee chair;
o Examination of evidence;
o Interviews of complainant and respondent;
o Interviews of other persons as necessary and appropriate;
o A finding for each al egation, determining whether research misconduct occurred, and
if so, identifying the responsible person and determining the nature and seriousness of
the research misconduct;
o Preparation of a final, written report.
The RIO wil be available throughout the investigation process to advise the committee as
The investigation committee must use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough
and sufficiently documented, and includes an examination of all research records and evidence
relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation. The committee wil interview
each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably
identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including
witnesses identified by the respondent. Al interviews wil be recorded or transcribed, and the
interviewees will be provided the recording or transcript of the interview for correction.
8. The Investigation Report
At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigation committee will prepare a written report
that summarizes its findings and recommendations. The required elements of this report are:
● Names of the committee members;
● Name and title/position of the respondent;
● Description of the allegation of research misconduct investigated;
● Description of the investigation process utilized;
● Inventory of the evidence reviewed, including documents and evidence examined and
● A finding as to whether research misconduct occurred for each separate al egation
identified during the investigation, and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly,
● Identification of each finding of research misconduct as plagiarism, falsification,
fabrication, or other serious deviations from accepted practices;
● Identification of the individual responsible for each instance of research misconduct;
● Summary of the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion;
● If federal funds are involved, identification of grant numbers, applications, contracts and
publications that list PHS or other federal support;
● Identification of any publications that require correction or retraction; and
● Any comments on the draft investigation committee report by the respondent.
Respondent’s Opportunity for Review and Comment
The RIO wil provide the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and,
concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based. The
respondent wil be al owed 30 days from the date he or she receives the draft report to submit
written comments to the RIO. Any comments wil be provided to the investigation committee for
consideration. The committee may revise the draft investigation report, as appropriate, and wil
prepare a final report. Any written comments provided by the respondent must be attached to
the final investigation committee report. The investigation committee report with al attachments
must be submitted to the VPRTT and RIO.
Upon review of the investigation committee’s final report and attachments, the VPRTT wil
prepare a written recommendation and forward both the investigation committee report and his
or her recommendation to the Provost for review and disposition. The Provost wil issue a final,
written decision. If the Provost’s decision varies from the findings of the investigation committee
and/or the VPRTT’s recommendation, the Provost wil , as part of his or her written determination,
explain in detail the basis for the decision. If it is determined that research misconduct has
occurred, the Provost wil determine the appropriate course of disciplinary action in accordance
with relevant CSM policies and procedures, and wil confer with the VPRTT and RIO to determine
other, appropriate institutional actions in response to the research misconduct. If it is determined
that research misconduct has not occurred, the matter is closed with the Provost’s decision,
which serves as the final decision of the institution. If requested, the institution wil make all
practical, reasonable and appropriate efforts to restore the reputation of the individual alleged to
have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no findings of research misconduct
The Provost wil notify the respondent in writing of the results of the investigation, including a
copy of the final investigation committee report with all attachments. The notification wil outline
plans for any pending disciplinary action against the respondent. By separate, written
communication, the Provost wil also notify the complainant of the results of the investigation.
The RIO wil notify the affected Deans and Department Heads of the results of the investigation.
As required, the RIO wil also notify any applicable federal oversight and funding agencies in
writing of: the investigation committee’s findings; whether the institution accepts the
investigation committee’s findings; whether the institution found misconduct and, if so, who
committed the misconduct; and any pending or completed institutional actions or sanctions. This
notification wil include a copy of the investigation committee’s report with all attachments.
E. Record Retention
All documentation and records related to al egations of research misconduct, regardless of
whether they resulted in an inquiry or investigation, wil be retained and secured by the RIO for a
period of seven (7) years from the date of the receipt of the allegation. Al documentation and
records related to research misconduct inquiries and investigations wil be retained and secured
for a period of seven (7) years from the date of the completion of the research misconduct
Promulgated by the CSM Board of Trustees on June 13, 1996.
Amended by the CSM Board of Trustees on June 22, 2000, and May 19, 2014.