Research Misconduct

As defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (42 CFR 93.103) research misconduct means the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
A finding of research misconduct made under this part (42 CFR 93.104) requires that –
(a) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
(b) The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(c) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

The basic principle in the conduct of scholarly activity rests on objective inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Integrity in the conduct of scholarly activity is essential and must be maintained.

Although instances of misconduct are rare, it is acknowledged that they do occur. Once they do occur, they present a serious threat to continued public confidence in the integrity of the scholarship and the stewardship of funds that support the scholarly activity.

Scope
This policy applies to all individuals at the Univer­sity of Arkansas at Little Rock paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, includ­ing faculty, administrators, scientists, trainees, tech­nicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This policy neither limits nor supersedes the University’s policies on Academic Integrity and Discipline for undergraduate and graduate stu­dents as stated in the UA Little Rock Student Handbook.

Definitions
A. Activity record means any data, document, com­puter file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or informa­tion regarding the proposed, conducted, or re­ported activity that constitutes the subject of an allegation of misconduct. An activity record in­cludes, but is not limited to, grant or contract appli­cations, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract process and other reports; laboratory note­books; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; works of art; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory pro­curement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; and consent forms.

B. Allegation means any written or oral state­ment or other indication of possible misconduct made to an institutional official.

C. Complainant means a person who makes an allegation of misconduct.

D. Conflict of interest means real or apparent bias due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

E. Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for, or willful igno­rance of, facts that would disprove the allegation.

F. Inquiry means gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allega­tion or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.

G. Integrity Officer means the University of Ar­kansas at Little Rock official responsible for assess­ing allegations of misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and over­seeing inquiries and investigations.

H. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

I. Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of misconduct is directed or the per­son whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respon­dent in any inquiry or investigation.

J. Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock or an employee because the individual has, in good faith, made an allegation of misconduct or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation, or inadequate in­stitutional response thereto.

K. Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly community for proposing, conducting, or reporting scholarly activity. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

Rights and Responsibilities
A. Integrity Officer
The Chancellor will appoint the Integrity Of­ficer who will have primary responsibility for the imple­mentation of the procedures set forth in this document. The Integrity Officer will be a Univer­sity of Arkansas at Little Rock official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct scholarly activities, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

The Integrity Officer will preside over the in­quiry and investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evalua­tion of the relevant evidence in an inquiry or inves­tigation.

The Integrity Officer will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained. The Integrity Officer will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all University of Ar­kansas at Little Rock personnel in complying with this policy and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and security of the files.

If a sponsored project is involved, the Integrity Officer will report to the Funding Agency and keep the Funding Agency apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential sponsored fund­ing for the individual(s) under investigation or that the Funding Agency needs to know to ensure ap­propriate use of external funds and otherwise pro­tect the public interest.

B. Complainant
The complainant will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation com­mittees, to review portions of the inquiry and in­vestigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the Integrity Officer has deter­mined that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions may be given to the com­plainant for comment.

The complainant is responsible for making alle­gations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.

C. Respondent
The respondent will be informed of the allega­tions when an inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent also will have the right to be interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the draft inquiry and investigation reports, and to have the advice of legal counsel employed at his or her own expense.

The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is not found guilty of misconduct, he or she has the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation.

D. Deciding Official
The Chancellor will receive the inquiry and/ or investigation report and any written comments made by the respondent or the complainant on the draft report. The Chancellor will consult with the Integrity Officer or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct an investiga­tion, whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to take other appro­priate administrative actions [see Institutional Administrative Actions Section].

General Policies and Principles
A. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
All employees or individuals associated with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in scholarly activities to the Integrity Officer or Chan­cellor. If an individual is unsure whether a sus­pected incident falls within the definition of misconduct, he or she may call the Integrity Officer to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of misconduct, the Integrity Officer will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for re­solving the problem.

At any time, an employee may have confiden­tial discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the Integrity Officer and will be counseled about appropriate proce­dures for reporting allegations.

B. Protecting the Complainant
The Integrity Officer will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto, and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. The Integrity Officer will ensure that these persons will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the institution and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the Integrity Officer.

The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will pro­tect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the maximum extent possible. For example, if the complainant requests anonymity, the University will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable policies and regulations, and state and local laws, if any. The complainant will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the complainant’s testimony is required, anonymity may not be possible. UA Little Rock will undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.

C. Protecting the Respondent
Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without com­promising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the inquiry or investigation.

D. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
University of Arkansas at Little Rock employees will cooperate with the Integrity Officer and other University of Arkansas at Little Rock officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the In­tegrity Officer or other University of Arkansas at Little Rock officials on misconduct allegations.

E. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations
Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct, the Integrity Officer will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry and whether the allegation falls under the University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s definition of misconduct.

Conducting the Inquiry
A. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry
If the Integrity Officer determines that the alle­gation provides sufficient information to warrant specific follow-up and falls under the definition of misconduct, he or she immediately will initiate the inquiry process. In initiating the inquiry, the Integ­rity Officer should clearly identify the original alle­gation and any related issues that should be evaluated. The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is suffi­cient evidence of possible misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether miscon­duct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The findings of the inquiry must be set forth in an inquiry report. An Inquiry Committee shall be appointed as provided for herein.

B. Sequestration of the Activity Records
After determining that an allegation falls within the definition of misconduct, the Integrity Officer must ensure that all original activity records and materials relevant to the allegation are immedi­ately secured. This sequestration should occur be­fore the respondent is notified of the inquiry.

C. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee shall consist of the supervisory dean and supervisory chairperson and may include one additional expert appointed by the supervisory dean in the case of students and faculty OR the immediate supervisor and one addi­tional expert in the case of other employees.
The Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the inquiry and the members of the Inquiry Committee. If the respondent submits a written objection to any member of the Inquiry Committee based on bias or conflict of interest within 5 days, the Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
The Integrity Officer will prepare a charge for the Inquiry Committee that describes the allega­tions and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment and states that the purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to warrant an investigation. The pur­pose is not to determine whether misconduct defi­nitely occurred or who was responsible.

At the committee’s first meeting, the Integrity Officer will review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the committee. The Integrity Officer will be present throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed. Institutional legal counsel will be available to advise the committee if needed.

E. Inquiry Process
The Inquiry Committee normally will interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses, as well as examine relevant activity records and materials. The Inquiry Committee then will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the Integrity Officer and institutional legal counsel (if deemed appropriate), the committee members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to recommend further investigation.

The Inquiry Report
A. Elements of the Inquiry Report
A written inquiry report shall be prepared that states the name and position of the committee members and experts, if any; the allegations; a summary of the inquiry process used; a list of the activity records reviewed; summaries of any inter­views; a description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an investigation is recommended and whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation is not recom­mended. Institutional legal counsel may review the report for legal sufficiency.

B. Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Complainant
The Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with the portions of the draft inquiry report that address the complainant’s role and opinions of the investigation.

1. Confidentiality
The Integrity Officer may establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.

2. Receipt of Comments
Within 5 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the complainant and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the inquiry com­mittee. Any comments that the complainant or respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the inquiry report and record.
Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the report as appropriate.

C. Inquiry Decision and Notification
1. Decision by Deciding Official
The Integrity Officer will transmit the final re­port and any comments to the Chancellor (Decid­ing Official), who will make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry provide suffi­cient evidence of possible misconduct to justify conducting an investigation. The inquiry is com­pleted when the Chancellor makes this determina­tion, which will be made within 75 days of the first meeting of the inquiry committee. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and re­corded in the inquiry file.

2. Notification
The Integrity Officer will notify both the re­spondent and the complainant in writing of the Chancellor’s decision of whether to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of the obliga­tion to cooperate in the event an investigation is opened. The Integrity Officer will also notify all appropriate University of Arkansas at Little Rock officials of the Chancellor’s decision.

D. Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report
The inquiry committee will normally complete the inquiry and submit its report in writing to the Integrity Officer no more than 60 calendar days following its first meeting. This includes conducting the inquiry, obtaining comments from the respondent and complainant, and submitting the report to the Chancellor through the Integrity Officer.

Conducting the Investigation
A. Purpose of the Investigation
The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine the evidence in-depth, and to determine specifically whether mis­conduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if it affects activity that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. The findings of the inves­tigation will be included in an investigation report.

B. Sequestration of the Activity Records
The Integrity Officer will immediately seques­ter any additional pertinent activity records that were not previously sequestered during the in­quiry. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investi­gation has begun. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

C. Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The Chancellor shall appoint three tenured faculty members, whom he/she deems to have appro­priate expertise to assure a sound knowledge base from which to work, to the Misconduct in Scholar­ship Investigation Committee. The Chancellor can appoint additional members to the Investigation Committee if certain knowledge or experience is desired.

The Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership within S days of initiation of the investigation. If the respon­dent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee within S days of receipt of such notification, the Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the chal­lenged member with a qualified substitute.

­D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
1. Charge to the Committee
The Integrity Officer will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the committee that describes the allegations and re­lated issues identified during the inquiry, defines misconduct, and identifies the name of the respon­dent. The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respon­dent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. During the investigation, if additional informa­tion becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify the Integrity Officer, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents.

2. The First Meeting
The Integrity Officer will convene the first meet­ing of the Investigation Committee to review the charge, the inquiry report and the prescribed pro­ced ures and standards for the conduct of the inves­tigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation. The Integrity Officer may seek the assistance of institu­tional legal counsel in conducting these duties. The Investigation Committee will be provided with a copy of the instructions.

E. Investigation Process
The Investigation Committee will be appointed and the process initiated within 30 days of the completion of the inquiry. The investigation normally will involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant activity records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. Whenever possible, the committee should interview the complainant(s), the respondent( s), and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations. Interviews of the respondent should be tape-recorded or transcribed. All other interviews should be transcribed, tape-recorded, or summarized. Summaries or transcripts of the interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for content or revision, and included as part of the investigative file.

The Investigation Report
A. Elements of the Investigation Report
The final report submitted to the Chancellor must describe how and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. The report will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct.

B. Comments on the Draft Report
1. Respondent
The Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for com­ment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 15 calendar days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent’s comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report should take into account the respondent’s comments in addition to all the other evidence.

2. Complainant
The Integrity Officer will provide the complain­ant with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant’s role and opin­ions in the investigation. The complainant will be allowed 15 calendar days to review and comment on the draft report. The complainant’s comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainant’s comments.

3. Institutional Legal Counsel
The draft investigation report will be transmit­ted to the institutional legal counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency. Comments should be incorpo­rated into the report as appropriate.

4. Confidentiality
In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the Integrity Officer will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the Integrity Officer may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement or to come to his or her office to review the report.

C. Institutional Review and Decision​
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Chancellor will make the final determination of whether to accept the investigation report, its find­ings, and the recommended institutional actions. If this determination varies from that of the Investi­gation Committee, the Chancellor will submit to the Investigation Committee a written explanation detailing the basis for rendering a decision differ­ent from that of the Investigation Committee. The Chancellor’s explanation should be consistent with the Institution’s definition of misconduct, the Institution’s policies and procedures, and the evi­dence reviewed and analyzed by the Investigation Committee. The Chancellor also may return the report to the Investigation Committee with a re­quest for further fact-finding or analysis. The Chancellor’s determination, together with the In­vestigation Committee’s report, constitutes the fi­nal investigation report for purposes of Funding Agency review. If the activity is externally funded, the Chancellor will explain any variance in his/her final determination in the final investigation letter transmitting the report to the Funding Agency.
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. In ad­dition, the Chancellor will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, pro­fessional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The Integrity Officer is respon­sible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding agencies.

D. Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to Funding Agency
After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report, the Investigation Committee should trans­mit the final report with attachments, including the respondent’s and complainant’s comments, to the Funding Agency, through the Integrity Officer.

E. Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report
An investigation ordinarily should be completed within 120 calendar days of its initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the Investigation Committee. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft report available to the subject of the investigation for comment, submitting the report to the Chancellor for approval, and submitting the report to the Funding Agency.

Requirements for Reporting to the Funding Agency
A. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s deci­sion to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the Funding Agency, on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation as it relates to the funding agency’s definition of misconduct, and the application or grant number(s) involved. The Fund­ing Agency must also be notified of the final out­come of the investigation and must be provided with a copy of the investigation report. Any signifi­cant variations from the provisions of the institu­tional policies and procedures should be explained in any reports submitted to the Funding Agency.

B. If the University of Arkansas at Little Rock plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant require­ments of this policy, the Integrity Officer will sub­mit a report of the planned termination to the Funding Agency, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.

C. If the University of Arkansas at Little Rock deter­mines that it will not be able to complete the inves­tigation in 120 calendar days, the Integrity Officer will submit a written explanation that describes reasons for the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report and describes other necessary steps to be taken.

D. When Public Health Service (PHS) funding or applications for funding are involved, and an admis­sion or finding of misconduct is made, the Integrity Officer will contact the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for consultation and advice. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, the Uni­versity of Arkansas at Little Rock cannot accept an admission of misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from the ORI.

E. The Integrity Officer will notify the Funding Agency at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
there is an immediate health hazard involved;
there is an immediate need to protect external funds or equipment;
there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allega­tions or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-inves­tigators and associates, if any;
it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
the allegation involves a public health sensi­tive issue, e.g. a clinical trial;
there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this instance, the insti­tution must inform the Funding Agency within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

Institutional Administrative Actions
The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will take appropriate administrative actions against indi­viduals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated.

If the Chancellor determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consultation with the Integrity Officer. The actions include:
informing in writing the agency (if any) spon­soring the activity;
informing in writing the University of Arkan­sas Board of Trustees;
recommending to the President appropriate administrative action as provided for in the policies and procedures of the University;
withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the activity where misconduct was found;
restitution of funds as appropriate; and other action deemed appropriate by the Chan­cellor.

Other Considerations
A. Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
In the case of externally sponsored activities, the termination of the respondent’s institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate mis­conduct procedures outlined in this Policy. If the respondent without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investiga­tion, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allega­tions, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of all the evidence.

B. Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation
If the University of Arkansas at Little Rock finds no misconduct after consulting with the re­spondent, the Integrity Officer will undertake rea­sonable efforts to restore the respondent’s reputation. Depending on the particular circum­stances, the Integrity Officer should consider noti­fying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of mis­conduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the misconduct allegation from the respondent’s personnel file.

C. Protection of the Complainant and Others
Regardless of whether the institution deter­mines that scientific misconduct occurred, the In­tegrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of mis­conduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the Chancellor will determine, after consulting with the complainant, what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of the complain­ant. The Integrity Officer is responsible for imple­menting any steps the Chancellor approves. The Integrity Officer also will take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the complainant. The Uni­versity follows the Public Health Service Office of Research Integrity’s “Guidelines for Responding to Possible Retaliation Against Whistleblowers in Extramural Research.”

D. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the Chancellor will determine whether the complainant’s allegations of miscon­duct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the Chancellor will deter­mine whether any administrative action should be taken against the complainant as provided for in the policies and procedures of the University.

E. Interim Administrative Actions
Institutional officials will take interim adminis­trative actions, as appropriate, to protect external funds and ensure that the purposes of the external financial assistance are carried out.

Record Retention
The RIO must maintain and provide to ORI upon request “records of research misconduct proceedings” as that term is defined by 42 CFR § 93.317. Unless custody has been transferred to HHS or ORI has advised in writing that the records no longer need to be retained, records of research misconduct proceedings must be maintained in a secure manner for 7 years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation. The RIO is also responsible for providing any information, documentation, research records, evidence, or clarification requested by ORI to carry out its review of an allegation of research misconduct or of the institution’s handling of such an allegation.
(Updated 12/12/2023)

UA Little Rock’s Research Integrity Officer is Dr. April Chatham-Carpenter. She can be reached via email at axchathamca@ualr.edu or via phone at 501-916-6026.

The Research Integrity Of­ficer (RIO) is appointed by the Chancellor and has primary responsibility for imple­mentation of the procedures associated with Research Misconduct. The RIO will be a Univer­sity of Arkansas at Little Rock official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct scholarly activities, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

Research misconduct can be reported directly to any of the following parties:

Office of Research Compliance
Ms. Angela Willis, aewillis@ualr.edu, 501-916-6209

Research Integrity Officer
Dr. April Chatham-Carpenter, axchathamca@ualr.edu, 501-916-6026

Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. Brian Berry, bcberry@ualr.edu, 501-916-6215