Procedure 29-2

Date Effective: 22/06/2015

Authorized by: Administration Committee

ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF A BREACH OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH

PURPOSE

1. The purposes of these Procedures are:
   1. to establish minimum requirements for responsible conduct of Research;
   2. to define what constitutes a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research; and
   3. to establish a process for addressing an Allegation of a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research.

INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE

2. Capitalized words and expressions used in this Procedure have a corresponding meaning attributed to them as set out in the Definitions at Section 28 of Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research and at Section 43 of this Procedure.
3. This Procedure must be read in the context of the University’s Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research and Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements. In the event that there is a conflict between the University’s Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research, this Procedure, any applicable University Policies and Procedures, and any other applicable Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, the more stringent provision will apply.
4. Allegations of financial misconduct will be dealt with in accordance with the University’s Policy 92 on Financial Fraud.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH

5. Researchers shall strive to follow the best Research practices honestly, accountably, openly and fairly in the search for and in the dissemination of knowledge. In addition, Researchers shall follow applicable University Policies and

   Procedures, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements and Applicable Laws. Without limiting the general interpretation of the previous sentence, at a minimum, Researchers are responsible for the following:

   1. Applying for and Holding Funding

      Providing true, complete and accurate information in their funding applications and related documents and representing themselves, their Research and their accomplishments in a manner consistent with the norms of the relevant field;

      Not applying for funding if the researcher is currently ineligible to apply for, and/or hold, funds from NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR or any other research funding organization world-wide for reasons of breach of responsible conduct of research policies such as ethics, integrity or financial management policies.

      Principal funding applicants must ensure that others listed on the application have agreed to be included.

   2. Management of Agency Grant and Award Funds: using grant, contract or award funds in accordance with University Policies and Procedures and with Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements and for providing true, complete and accurate information on documentation for expenditures from research grant or award accounts;
   3. Rigour: Scholarly and scientific rigour in proposing and performing research; in recording, analyzing, and interpreting data; and in reporting and publishing data and findings;
   4. Record keeping: Keeping complete and accurate records of Research Data, methodologies and findings, including graphs and images, in accordance with University Policies and Procedures, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, professional and field-specific standards and Applicable Laws in a manner that will allow verification or replication of the work by others;
   5. Accurate referencing: Referencing and, where applicable, obtaining permission for the use of all published and unpublished work, including theories, concepts, Research data, source material, methodologies, findings, graphs and images;
   6. Authorship: Including as Authors, with their consent, all those who have made a substantial contribution to, and who accept responsibility for, the contents of the publication or document. The substantial contribution may be conceptual or material.
   7. Acknowledgement: Acknowledging appropriately all those and only those who have contributed to research, including funders and sponsors;
   8. Conflict of Interest management: Appropriately identifying and addressing any real, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, in accordance with the institution’s policy on Conflict of Interest in research, in order to ensure that the objectives of the RCR Framework (Article 1.3) are met;
   9. Rectifying a Breach of Agency Policy: proactively rectifying a breach of a University Policy and Procedure, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, and Applicable Laws that are made known to the Researcher; and
   10. Cooperation: cooperating in an Inquiry, Investigation and in responding to an Allegation or Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research.

GENERAL PROVISIONS ON PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING AN ALLEGATION

6. Confidentiality: In order to protect the privacy of both the Complainant(s) and Respondent(s), the process shall take place in the strictest confidentiality to the extent possible and within the limitations of Applicable Laws. Any communication or information gathered during the process is confidential except to the extent that disclosure is legally required or is necessary to effectively implement Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research or this Procedure, other applicable University Policies and Procedures, the Research Sponsors’ Policies and Requirements or to undertake any consequences or remedial measures arising from a decision made under this Procedure.
7. Role of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity: Throughout the process for addressing an Allegation, the Director of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall coordinate with the Appropriate Authority and any other relevant authorities within the University, to assure that the processes set out in this Procedure are conducted in a timely manner and in compliance with Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements; and shall act as the University’s institutional liaison with the Research Sponsors, the Agencies, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, as well as the University’s Research Ethics Board and any other parties, as may be required.
8. Interim Measures: Pending the final outcome of an Inquiry or Investigation into an Allegation, the University may independently or at the Research Sponsor’s request, in exceptional circumstances, take immediate action to protect the administration of a Research Sponsor’s funds (for example: freezing of grant accounts, requiring a second authorized signature from a University representative on all expenses charged to the Researcher’s grant accounts). The Appropriate Authority may, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, take whatever action or make whatever arrangements are necessary in his or her opinion to prevent risk of harm to life or property, and to keep the status quo in order to preserve the ability to render a meaningful final decision on the merits of the Allegation.
9. Timelines: The deadlines mentioned in the Process for addressing an Allegation are meant to ensure that a complaint is dealt with in a timely fashion and, where applicable, comply with the Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements.
   1. It can be impossible to determine appropriate timelines for addressing an Allegation given the unpredictability of each case as well as the volume and nature of the research to be reviewed and the complexity associated with the Allegation. Therefore, where no timelines or deadlines are mentioned in this Procedure, the intention is to address an Allegation and complete the process within a range of between two to seven months and in any event, to act as expeditiously as possible in light of the nature and complexity of the circumstances of the Allegation and in light of other circumstances that may arise during the process. The Inquiry should normally be completed within 2 months of receipt of an Allegation and the Investigation should normally be completed within 5 months of completion of the Inquiry.
   2. There may be, in exceptional circumstances, reasons to extend a deadline or timeline for addressing an Allegation. In such a case, the Vice-President, Research may, in consultation where necessary with the Agencies, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, or other Research Sponsor, extend a deadline where the delay is incurred in good faith and the extension does not prejudice or harm those involved in the Allegation.

PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING AN ALLEGATION

10. Applicable collective agreement or other applicable process: The process set out in this Procedure is not meant to replace or supersede complaint and investigation processes in relation to responsible conduct of Research in applicable collective agreement provisions or in applicable Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements. If there is an applicable complaint and investigation process within an applicable collective agreement or Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, the Allegation will be dealt with under the relevant provisions of that collective agreement or that Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements. In the event that there is a conflict between the University’s Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research, this Procedure and any other applicable Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, or academic regulations, the more stringent provision will apply. Where there is no applicable collective agreement or no Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, the Allegation and Investigation will be handled in accordance with this Procedure.
    1. Allegation against a Researcher who is a member of the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO): A Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research shall be considered a contravention of Article 10 in the APUO Collective Agreement entitled "Professional Ethics" and the procedures set out in Article 39 – Disciplinary measures, shall be used to investigate and address an Allegation, unless otherwise agreed to between the APUO and the University or required by a Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements.
    2. Where an Allegation of A Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research is brought against a member of CUPE 2626, procedures set out in Article 15 of the CUPE 2626 Collective Agreement shall be used to investigate and address the Allegation, unless otherwise agreed to between CUPE 2626 and the University or required by a Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements.

    3. Allegation against a Researcher who is a student where the Allegation does not relate to their employment as in Section 10 (b):

       The procedures set out in the University’s Academic Regulation A-4 - Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct be used to address an Allegation made against a Researcher who is a student (and it does not relate to their employment) and an appeal, if any, by the student.
       The Dean of the Respondent’s faculty (or his/her equivalent or his/her delegate) is the Appropriate Authority.

       When applying the procedures of the  Academic Regulation A-4 - Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct to address an Allegation made against a Researcher who is a student, the Appropriate Authority will take into account the nature of the Allegation and the applicability of the Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements. Adjustments to the procedure may be made by the dean, inquiry committee, Senate Appeals Committee, as applicable and where necessary to be in keeping with the purposes of the University’s Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research, the purpose of this Procedure, as well as the general provisions on process and principles set out in this Procedure. Further and without limiting the general interpretation of the previous sentence, the following shall apply:

       1. If the Allegation is referred to the inquiry committee, the dean shall ensure that the requirements of Sections 26 and 27 of this Procedure are met.

       2. The authority of the inquiry committee shall be as described in Section 26 of this Procedure and is in addition to its authority under the Academic Fraud Regulation if the Allegation also encompasses allegations relating to a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research.

          For greater certainty:

          1. if the Allegation consists only of a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research, the inquiry committee’s authority is as set out in Section 26 of this Procedure;
          2. if the Allegation encompasses both allegations of academic fraud and a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research, the inquiry committee has the authority given to it pursuant to the Academic Fraud Regulation and the authority given in Section 26 of this Procedure;
          3. The inquiry committee report shall contain the elements described in Section 30 of this Procedure.
       3. The sanctions set out in the Academic Fraud Regulation are available as potential consequences or measures to prevent a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research and are in addition to those mentioned in Section 35 of this Procedure.
       4. Throughout the process and in order for the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity to fulfill his or her role and responsibilities, the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall be kept informed, provided with a copy of the Allegation and documentation arising from the process and shall be consulted by the dean, inquiry committee and Senate Appeals Committee as applicable and as necessary.
       5. The preparation and submission of a report, where required and as referred to in Section 40 of this Procedure applies.

Making an Allegation

11. A Complainant may make an Allegation by submitting the Allegation in writing to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. In the event an Allegation is received by another person, such Allegation shall immediately be referred to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity.
12. An anonymous Allegation may be considered if it consists of sufficient, substantive and verifiable information and if anonymity of the Complainant does not prejudice the fairness of the Investigation.
13. In a situation in which the Complainant has identified him or herself when making an Allegation, but wishes that her or his identity not be disclosed, the Allegation may be considered if sufficient publically available and/or independently verifiable corroborating evidence is provided or obtainable or if disclosure of the Complainant’s identity places that person in plausible jeopardy. However, it is not possible to guarantee confidentiality of the Complainant’s identity if fairness or evidence gathering during the process of addressing an Allegation requires disclosure of identity. Before making an Allegation, a person may consult informally and confidentially with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity to learn more about the process outlined in this Procedure.
14. For Research funded by an Agency, subject to Applicable Laws, in particular, privacy laws, the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall be responsible for immediately advising the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research and the relevant Agency of an Allegation relating to activities funded by the Agency that may involve significant financial, health and safety or other significant risks.
15. The Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall refer the Allegation to the Appropriate Authority for treatment in accordance with this Procedure.

Receipt of an Allegation and Response

16. The Appropriate Authority will acknowledge receipt of the Allegation to the Complainant, with a copy to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, inform the Complainant of the procedural steps for responding to the Allegation (if the identity of the Complainant is known) and, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity or such others as the Appropriate Authority considers necessary, review the Allegation and if necessary and if the identity of the Complainant is known, seek clarification from the Complainant on the information contained in the Allegation.
17. The Appropriate Authority then sends a copy of the Allegation to the Respondent along with any other information obtained from the Complainant, with a copy to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. In the case of multiple allegations, and if the Appropriate Authority determines that not all allegations have merit or substance after consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity or such others as the Appropriate Authority considers necessary, the Appropriate Authority shall clearly identify the Allegations for which a Response is being sought.
18. The Respondent is asked to respond in writing to the Allegation within 10 working days from the date the Allegation was sent to the Respondent. In the absence of a Response, the Appropriate Authority may proceed to an Investigation.
19. The Appropriate Authority will acknowledge receipt of the Response to the Respondent, if any, review it, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity or such others as the Appropriate Authority considers necessary, and if necessary, seek clarification from the Respondent on the information contained in the Response.

Inquiry

20. The Appropriate Authority determines the following, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, or such others as the Appropriate Authority considers necessary, based on the information received in the Allegation and in the Response:
    1. whether the Allegation is a Responsible Allegation, as defined in the Definitions, Section 43 of this Procedure;
    2. whether a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research may have occurred;
    3. what University Policy and/or Procedure, what Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements, or what Applicable Laws may have been breached; and
    4. whether an Investigation is warranted.
21. The Appropriate Authority, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, or such others as the Appropriate Authority considers necessary, may dismiss the Allegation, without further Inquiry or Investigation, if the Appropriate Authority determines that the Allegation is not a Responsible Allegation.
22. In the event that:
    1. the Allegation is determined to be a Responsible Allegation; and
    2. a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research is confirmed (e.g., the Respondent admits to and accepts responsibility for the alleged Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research); and

    3. that further Investigation would not uncover any new information pertinent to the matter;

       the Appropriate Authority, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity and such others as the Appropriate Authority considers necessary, shall:

       1. consider if the Respondent’s admission is sufficient for a finding of Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research; and
       2. whether an Investigation by an Investigative Committee is warranted or required under Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements; and
       3. where appropriate, determine what consequences and measures should result from the Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research .
23. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the Response, the Appropriate Authority informs the Respondent in writing of the determinations made at the conclusion of the Inquiry stage and sends a copy to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity.

24. The Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall prepare a report on the determinations made at the conclusion of the Inquiry containing, at a minimum, the following:

    1. Summary of the specific allegation(s) and the Respondent’s Response to them;
    2. Information and documentation considered;
    3. Summary of the Inquiry’s findings and reasons for the findings;
    4. The process and time lines for the Inquiry;
    5. As attachments to the report, all the documentation reviewed and considered during the Inquiry.
       Where applicable, the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall inform the relevant Agency of whether or not the University is proceeding with an Investigation by writing to the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.

    If a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research is confirmed at the Inquiry stage, reporting requirements outlined in Section 30 of this Procedure, with necessary adjustments, apply.

25. The Appropriate Authority, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, shall on a case-by-case basis determine whether to provide the Complainant with relevant portions of the Inquiry report. The Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall ensure that the Complainant signs a confidentiality agreement as a condition of access to the Inquiry report.

Investigative Committee

26. If the Appropriate Authority determines that an Investigation is warranted, the Appropriate Authority shall appoint at least three members to an Investigative Committee whose authority shall be to Investigate and decide whether a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research has occurred and if so, recommend recourse or remedial action. The Appropriate Authority must not be a member of the Investigative Committee.
27.  In selecting the members of the Investigative Committee, the Appropriate Authority shall ensure that all members are free of Conflict of Interest; that at least one member is a person normally considered to be a peer of the Respondent and has expertise in the subject matter of the Inquiry; and that at least one member is external to the University with no current affiliation to it.
28. The Investigative Committee shall select its Chair and set its own procedures, which at a minimum, shall provide the Complainant and the Respondent with an opportunity to meet with the Investigative Committee and allow each of them to be heard and know what information is being considered by the Investigative Committee in addition to what is contained in the Allegation, the Response and the documentation provided by the Complainant and the Respondent.
29. The Investigative Committee shall endeavor to complete its Investigation in a timely fashion as set out in Section 9 of this Procedure. If circumstances are such that the Investigative Committee is unable to complete its Investigation within such period, the Chair shall inform the Appropriate Authority and the Director of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, and shall provide monthly updates on the status of the progress of the Investigation to the Complainant and the Respondent, until the Investigation is complete.

Investigation Report

30. Upon completion of the Investigation, the Investigative Committee will send to the Respondent, with a copy to the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, a written confidential draft Investigation report containing the following:
    1. Summary of the specific allegation(s) and the Respondent’s Response to them;
    2. Information and documentation considered;
    3. Summary of the Investigative Committee’s findings and reasons for the findings;
    4. The process and time lines for the Investigation, including a list of individuals interviewed by the Investigative Committee;
    5. Conclusion on whether or not a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research has occurred;
    6. Recommendations, if any, on any consequences or imposition of corrective and/or disciplinary measures; and
    7. As attachments to the report, all the documentation reviewed and considered by the Investigative Committee
31. The Investigative Committee will provide the Respondent with an opportunity to send written comments on the draft Investigation report to the Investigative Committee no later than 10 working days after the draft Investigation report has been sent.
32. The Appropriate Authority, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, shall on a case-by-case basis determine whether to provide the Complainant with the draft Investigation report or relevant portions thereof. Any comments made by the Complainant on the draft Investigation report must be submitted within 10 working days after the draft Investigation report has been sent. The Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall ensure that the Complainant signs a confidentiality agreement as a condition of access to the Investigation report.
33. The Investigative Committee will consider the comments, if any, of the Complainant and of the Respondent, append these to the report, and finalize the Investigation report. The Investigative Committee will then send the final Investigation report to the Appropriate Authority with a copy to the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. The Appropriate Authority will send a copy of the final confidential Investigation report to the Respondent, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity.

Final Outcome

34. Upon reviewing the final Report of the Investigative Committee, if the Report’s conclusion is that a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research has occurred, or if a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research is confirmed at the Inquiry stage, the Appropriate Authority in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, decides or recommends on the imposition of any consequences or measures. The Appropriate Authority will inform the Respondent in writing of the final outcome of the Investigation and of any such consequences or measures subject to privacy considerations. The Appropriate Authority shall provide a copy of his or her letter to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity.
35. Consequences or measures resulting from a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research will depend on circumstances, on the severity of the Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research, such as an Innocent Violation, on any mitigating factors, on considerations to affected Researchers or Research Team and on any applicable University Policy and Procedure, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements and Applicable Laws. If a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research has occurred, consideration must be given to taking measures that will prevent such Breach from recurring in the future. The following list of potential consequences or measures resulting from a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research provides examples and is not meant to be exhaustive nor necessarily represents a progression in the severity of consequences or measures:
    1. Issuing a letter of concern to the Respondent;
    2. Requiring that the Respondent correct the Research record and provide proof that the Research record has been corrected;
    3. Requiring that the Respondent withdraw all relevant publications or pending publications;
    4. Requiring that the Respondent notify editors of publications in which the Research involved was reported;
    5. Ensuring that the unit(s) involved is(are) informed about appropriate practices for promoting the proper conduct
       of Research;
    6. Seeking a refund within a defined timeframe of all or part of the funds already paid or spent;
    7. Imposing employee disciplinary measures or other employment consequences; and
    8. Such other consequence or measure available pursuant to Applicable Laws, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements or University Policies and Procedures.
36. Consequences or measures resulting from a finding at the Inquiry stage or by the Investigative Committee that a Breach of Responsible Conduct did not occur and that the Allegation was not made in good faith or made with malice will depend on circumstances, on any mitigating factors, on considerations to affected Researchers or Research Team and on any applicable University Policy and Procedure, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements and Applicable Laws.
37. The imposition of any consequences or measures, if any, will take effect immediately unless these require the approval or decision of other governing authorities at the University in accordance with applicable University Policies and Procedures.
38. The Appropriate Authority, in consultation with the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, shall on a case-by-case basis determine whether to inform the Complainant of the final outcome of the Investigation, subject to privacy considerations.
39. The University will make reasonable efforts within its means to protect or restore the reputation of those who were the subject of an Allegation where no Breach of Responsible Conduct occurred or where an Allegation was not made in good faith or was made with malice and will take appropriate action, where warranted, to hold individuals responsible in accordance with applicable collective agreement provisions, terms of employment or with other University Policies and Procedures.
40. Where required by an Agency, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, or a Research Sponsor, the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity shall prepare a report to the Agency or the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research or the Research Sponsor on each Investigation conducted in response to an Allegation related to a funding application submitted to an Agency or a Research Sponsor or to an activity funded by an Agency or a Research Sponsor. The report shall not include information that is not related specifically to the Agency or Research Sponsor funding or personal information about the Researchers or other person that is not material to the decision. Subject to Applicable Laws, in particular, privacy laws, the report shall include the following information:
    1. The specific allegation(s), a summary of the finding(s) and reasons for the finding(s);
    2. The process and timelines followed by the Inquiry and/or Investigation;
    3. The Respondent’s Response to the Allegation, Investigation and findings, and any measures the Respondent has taken to
       rectify the Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research;
    4. Decision of the Investigative Committee and consequences or measures imposed by the University.

Appeal

41. Within thirty days from the date the Appropriate Authority communicated the final outcome of the Allegation, the Respondent may appeal the conclusion of the Investigative Committee and/or the Appropriate Authority’s decision on consequences or imposition of measures by submitting a written letter of appeal to the Vice-President, Research, with a copy to the director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity and to the Appropriate Authority, setting out in detail the reasons for the appeal.
    1. Upon review of the reasons for the appeal, the final Report of the Investigative Committee, the decision of the Appropriate Authority on consequences or measures, and after consultation with such others as the Vice-President, Research considers necessary, the Vice-President, Research disposes of the appeal, unless the appeal is an appeal of the decision to impose consequences or measures that are not within the Vice-President, Research’s authority, in which case the Vice-President Research refers the appeal to the applicable or governing authority at the University who has the power to dispose of the appeal.
    2. Once the appeal is disposed of, the Vice-President, Research (or other University governing or decision-making authority) sends a letter communicating the outcome of the appeal to the Respondent, normally within 60 days of reception of the appeal. The Vice-President, Research’s decision (or that of the governing or decision-making authority) is final.
    3. The Vice-President, Research (or other University governing or decision-making authority) shall provide a copy of his or her letter to the Appropriate Authority and to the Director, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity.

DEFINITIONS

42. For the purposes of this Procedure, the following words and expressions shall have the corresponding meaning as set out as set out below and capitalized words and expressions not defined below have a corresponding meaning attributed to them in the Definitions at Section 28 of Policy 115 on Responsible Conduct of Research. For the most part these definitions are based on the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research and do not replace or supersede existing definitions contained in applicable University of Ottawa collective agreement provisions:

    Appropriate Authority: the person at the University who is charged with conducting the Inquiry or an Investigation into an Allegation and who normally has authority over the Respondent, for example, a Respondent’s Dean for academic staff, students or a Service Director for support staff. For clarity, if the Respondent is a graduate student, the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (or his/her equivalent or his/her delegate) is the Appropriate Authority and if the Respondent is an undergraduate student, it is the dean of the faculty of the Respondent undergraduate student.

    Author (including co-author): The writer, or contributing writer, of a research publication or document.

    Complainant: An individual or a representative from an organization who has made an Allegation.

    Innocent Violation: Breaches of Responsible Conduct of Research committed by a Respondent who did not know and who could not reasonably have known of its impropriety, except where University Policies and Procedures, Research Sponsors’ Policies and/or Requirements or Applicable Laws explicitly provides otherwise.

    Research Data: All written and non-written material which is produced by a member of the Research Team during the course of conducting Research, including, but not limited to, data, records, computer software, program, database and other computer related materials, product of documentation, in any storage medium.

    Research Team: An expression to encompass the Principal Investigator, Researchers, Research Trainees, students and all other Members of the University Community engaged in a Research project or under the supervision or direction of the Principal Investigator.

    Respondent: An individual who is alleged to have engaged in a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research.

    Responsible Allegation: A substantially novel allegation made in good faith and without malice, that is based on facts which have not been the subject of a previous allegation, and which falls within one or more Breaches of Responsible Conduct of Research.

    Response: The written response by the Respondent to an Allegation.