Research Misconduct Appeals SOP

Appeals must be submitted via the Research Misconduct Proceedings Appeal Request form within 15 calendar days of the respondent receiving the final determination from the DO.

The appeal must clearly state the specific ground(s) for appeal, i.e. which of the above-referenced claims is being made and include:

• A detailed explanation of the specific deviation from ACA-30 that is alleged and its impact on the respondent’s due process, or a description of the employment/enrollment sanction being appealed and why it is disproportionate to the findings
• Any supporting documentation

Upon receipt of the Research Misconduct Proceedings Appeal Request form, the RIO and DO will confirm that the appeal includes the required information as described above. Appeals that do not include the required information will be returned to the respondent with a request for the additional information to be provided within 5 days.

If the appeal includes the required information, the RIO will forward the appeal to the Chief Academic Officer of the responsible campus or IU School of Medicine for review within 7 days of receipt of the form. The Chief Academic Officer will receive the following:

• Institutional record of the research misconduct proceedings, as defined by ACA-30
• Research Misconduct Proceedings Appeal Request form and any supporting documentation
• RIO response to the appeal and any supporting documentation

The RIO will notify the Chief Academic Office of confidentiality obligations outlined in ACA-30.

Upon receipt of the appeal, the Chief Academic Officer will review the appeal and make a recommendation based on the information provided.

• The Chief Academic Officer will notify the RIO immediately if they have a potential conflict of interest as defined by ACA-30.
• In rare circumstances, additional information from the respondent or RIO may be required. In such cases, the Chief Academic Officer will meet with both parties simultaneously to ask any questions. During the meeting, the Chief Academic Officer may pose questions to either party, but the parties may not pose questions to each other.
• Within 21 days of their receipt of the appeal, the Chief Academic Officer will make a recommendation in writing to the DO. The Chief Academic Officer may recommend one of the following:
  • That a new investigation be initiated, if the CAO determines that investigation proceedings deviated from ACA-30 to the extent that the respondent was denied due process
  • Alternative sanctions, if the CAO determines that sanctions related to employment or enrollment imposed as a result of a finding of research misconduct are disproportionate to the finding
  • No additional action

The Chief Academic Officer cannot designate review of the appeal unless they are unavailable to review it within the required timelines or they have a conflict of interest.

Upon receipt of the Chief Academic Officer’s recommendation, the DO will consider the recommendation and, within 10 days, document their final determination in writing. The RIO and DO will notify the respondent in writing of the outcome of the appeal and any follow up action. The DO’s determination will be considered final and no further appeals will be permitted.

If the appeal results in a new investigation, the DO shall name a replacement to carry out the functions of the RIO under ACA-30 for the purpose of completing the new investigation and through completion of the research misconduct proceedings. The replacement RIO will appoint a new investigation committee, with no committee members from the original committee, who will conduct a de novo review.

If the appeal results in modification of sanctions, the RIO will facilitate implementation of those actions.

All appeal submissions, correspondence, and determinations will be retained as a part of the institutional record, as defined by ACA-30.