Research Misconduct (Procedure #733.A)

This procedure sets forth the requirements for compliance to the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (UWW) policy on Research Misconduct towards ensuring the highest ethical standards in the research of its faculty and staff; to inquire into and, if necessary, investigate and resolve promptly and fairly all instances of alleged or apparent misconduct; and, as appropriate, to comply in a timely manner with requirements for reporting cases of possible misconduct to sponsoring agencies when sponsored research funds are involved. Misconduct in research shall be considered a breach of contract between the employee and the University.

Institutional Research Compliance Specialist, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP)

Accepted practices of the relevant research community: Those practices established by 42 CFR Part 93 and by PHS funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive PHS and non-PHS awards.

Administrative record: Comprises: the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to ORI, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings under § 93.403(b) between the respondent and ORI, and correspondence between the respondent and ORI; any additional information provided to ORI while the case is pending before ORI; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI. Any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI will also be made available to the respondent.

Allegation: A disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS official.

Assessment: A consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve PHS or non-PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant: An individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Evidence: Anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification: 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.

Good faith: (a) Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. (b) Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially performing the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this Policy. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry: Preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of § 93.307 through § 93.309. It is information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine if the allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.

Institution: Any person who applies for or receives PHS or non-PHS support for any activity or program that involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training. This includes, but is not limited to, colleges and universities, PHS intramural biomedical or behavioral research laboratories, research and development centers, national user facilities, industrial laboratories or other research institutes, research institutions, and independent researchers.

Institutional Deciding Official: The institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.

Institutional member(s): An individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants or attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Institutional record: Comprises: (a) The records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the assessment as required by § 93.306(c); (2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(c); (3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g), and information the respondent provided to the institution; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official under § 93.314; (5) the complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with § 93.315; (b) a single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally: To act with the aim of conducting the act.

Investigation: The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of §§ 93.310 through 93.317. It is a formal presentation, examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine whether misconduct has occurred, the severity of the alleged misconduct and its impact, and the recommendations for specific actions to be taken to address the misconduct.

Knowingly: To act with awareness of the act.

Office of Research Integrity (ORI): The federal office to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.

Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. (a) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. (b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of the evidence: Proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Public Health Service (PHS) support: PHS funding, or applications or proposals for PHS funding, for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training, that may be provided through funding for PHS intramural research; PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts; subawards, contracts, or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments; or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

Recklessly: To propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research: A systemic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge including, but not limited to, scientific, applied, behavioral and social-sciences research and/or any such activity for which funding is available from federal agencies.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93.

Research misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research misconduct proceeding: Any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under 42 CFR Part 93, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, ORI oversight reviews, and appeals under subpart E of 42 CFR Part 93.

Research record: The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent: The individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation: An adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Small institution: An institution that may be too small to conduct an inquiry or investigation into an allegation of research misconduct as required by 42 CFR Part 93 without actual or apparent conflicts of interest.

Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO): The HHS or, as applicable, a non-PHS official authorized to impose suspension and debarment, which are the actions that Federal agencies take to disqualify persons deemed not presently responsible from doing business with the Federal Government.

A. Assessment

1. An assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry.  An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.
2. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official will promptly determine whether the allegation
   1. falls within the definition of research misconduct,
   2. is within the applicability criteria of 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.102, and
   3. is credible and specific enough to identify and sequester potential evidence.
3. If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the allegation meets these three criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence.
4. The RIO or other institutional official must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings.
5. If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will write sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by ORI of why UWW did not proceed to an inquiry and securely retain this documentation for seven years. 

B. Inquiry

1. An inquiry is warranted if the allegation
   1. falls within the definition of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93,
   2. is within the applicability criteria of § 93.102, and
   3. is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
2. An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation.  An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence.
3. UWW will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report.
4. Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent
   1. Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), UWW will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years.
   2. UWW has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.
   3. At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, UWW will make a good-faith effort to notify the presumed respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation.
   4. If additional allegations are raised, UWW will notify the respondent(s) in writing.
   5. When appropriate, UWW will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.
   6. If additional respondents are identified, UWW will provide written notification to the new respondent(s).
   7. All additional respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent.
   8. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent.
5. Convening the Committee and Ensuring Neutrality
   1. UWW will ensure that all inquiry committee members understand their commission, keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation.
   2. In lieu of a committee, the institution may task the RIO or another designated institutional official to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.
6. Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted
   1. The inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional deciding officials will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence.
   2. In the process of fact-finding, the inquiry committee may interview the respondent and/or witnesses.
   3. An investigation is warranted if
      1. there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 and involves PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in § 93.102; and
      2. preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.
   4. The inquiry committee will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.
7. Documenting the Inquiry
   1. At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will prepare a written inquiry report.
   2. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:
      1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
      2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
      3. Details about the PHS and non-PHS funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS and non-PHS support.
      4. The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
      6. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
      7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
      8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
      10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
      11. Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
      12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
      13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest errors or differences of opinion.
8. Completing the Inquiry
   1. UWW will give the respondent(s) a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment.
   2. UWW may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment.
   3. UWW will notify the respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent with copies of the final inquiry report, the PHS regulation, and these policies and procedures.
   4. UWW may, but is not required to, notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted.
   5. If UWW provides notice to one complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.
9. If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:
   1. If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is not warranted, UWW will keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by ORI of why the institution did not proceed to an investigation, store these records in a secure manner for at least seven years after the termination of the inquiry, and provide them to ORI upon request.
10. If an Investigation is Warranted:
    1. If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is warranted, UWW must:
       1. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry;  and
       2. within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide ORI with a copy of the inquiry report.
    2. On a case-by-case basis, UWW may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct but is required to take the same notification action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

C. Investigation

1. The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions.
2. As part of its investigation, UWW will diligently pursue all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.
3. Within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted, UWW will notify ORI of the decision to investigate and begin the investigation.
4. Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence
   1. UWW will notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins.
   2. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, UWW will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with the PHS regulation.
   3. If UWW identifies additional respondents during the investigation, it may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation.
   4. UWW will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any HHS proceeding, whichever is later.
5. Convening an Investigation Committee
   1. After vetting investigation committee members for conflicts of interest and appropriate scientific expertise, the UWW will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation.
   2. The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s).
   3. UWW will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable.
   4. UWW will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.
6. Conducting Interviews
   1. UWW will interview each respondent, complainant(s), 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.
   2. UWW will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number.
   3. UWW will record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction.
   4. UWW will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation.  The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but UWW will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.
7. Documenting the Investigation
   1. UWW will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days.
   2. UWW will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment.
   3. UWW will document the IDO’s final decision and transmit the institutional record (including the final investigation report and IDO’s decision) to ORI.
   4. If the investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, UWW will ask ORI in writing for an extension and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.
   5. The investigation report for each respondent will include:
      1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
      2. Description and documentation of the PHS or non-PHS support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
      3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
      4. Composition of the investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records UWW did not consider or rely on.  This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
      6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
      7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS or non-PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
      8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      9. A copy of these policies and procedures.
      10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
      11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.
   6. If the committee recommends the finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will present a finding for each allegation. These findings will
      1. identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct;
      2. indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism;
      3. indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
      4. identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence;
      5. summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent;
      6. identify the specific PHS support; and
      7. state whether any publications need correction or retraction. 
   7. If the investigation committee does not recommend the finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.
   8. The investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
8. Completing the Investigation
   1. UWW will give the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on.
   2. The respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to UWW within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report.
   3. If UWW chooses to share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment, the complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the report.
   4. UWW will add any comments received to the investigation report.
9. IDO Review of the Investigation Report
   1. The IDO will review the investigation report and make a final written determination of whether UWW found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct.  In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.
   2. The IDO will not make a determination as to sanctions for individual employees or students. Any determination that a faculty member committed research misconduct shall be treated as a complaint by the IDO under chs. UWS 4 or 6, as appropriate.
   3. The IDO shall forward any determination that an employee committed research misconduct to the Human Resources Office for further action to determine the appropriate response.
   4. The IDO shall forward any determination that a student committed research misconduct to the Dean of Students for appropriate action under ch. UWS 14.
10. Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record
    1. After the IDO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, UWW will add the IDO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record in a logical manner.
    2. The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records UWW did not rely on.  These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report and investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation.
    3. The institutional record also includes the IDO’s final decision and any information the respondent provided to the institution.  The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
    4. If the respondent filed an appeal, the complete record of any institutional appeal also becomes part of the institutional record.
    5. The respondent shall be entitled to appeal the IDO’s determination that they committed research misconduct to the Provost, or, if the Provost was the IDO, to the Chancellor.
    6. The UWW will wait until the appeal is concluded to transmit the institutional record to ORI.  Also, the UWW will wait until the appeal is completed to begin any disciplinary action against an individual respondent.
    7. After the IDO has made a final written determination, and any institutional appeal is complete, UWW must transmit the institutional record to ORI.  Other Procedures and Special Circumstances.
11. Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents
    1. If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, UWW may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted.  If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions.
    2. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved.
    3. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.
    4. If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents or institutional members, UWW may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings.
    5. UWW must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
12. Respondent Admissions
    1. UWW will promptly notify ORI in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached.
    2. If the respondent admits to research misconduct, UWW will not close the case until providing ORI with the respondent’s signed, written admission.
    3. The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
    4. UWW must not close the case until giving ORI a written statement confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how UWW determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.
13. Other Special Circumstances
    1. At any time during the misconduct proceedings, UWW will immediately notify ORI if any of the following circumstances arise:
       1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
       2. HHS resources or interests are threatened.
       3. Research activities should be suspended.
       4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
       5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
       6. HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved. 

D. Records Retention

1. UWW will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including administrative records, physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record), in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to non-PHS sponsor or to HHS.
2. In addition, UWW will comply with all relevant records retention schedules under the Wisconsin Public Records Law.
   

Research Integrity - OSRP Website

First approved: April 16, 2026

February 2030

Questions regarding the interpretation of this procedure should be directed to:

Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP)
800 West Main Street; Whitewater, WI 53190-1791
orsp@uww.edu
p 262-472-5212 | f 262-472-5214

For complaints or concerns regarding research misconduct, please contact:

Office of Compliance and Risk Management (OCRM)
p. 262-472-1772 | ocrm@uww.edu