Faculty Policies

This section contains academic policies and procedures relating to Faculty.

The highest award offered by Hendrix College is the honorary degree. The College awards honorary degrees on a selective basis to distinguished individuals who merit exceptional recognition for substantial achievement and distinction in a field or activity consonant with the mission of the College as articulated in the Statement of Purpose. The process and outcome is of utmost importance because through its choice of honorary degree recipients, the College makes a public declaration of its own values. This award is distinct from other awards offered by the College in that it is not limited to, while not excluding, alumni or those making a direct impact on the College. The Board of Trustees authorizes honorary degree conferral upon recommendation by the Faculty as is codified in Section 16 of the By-Laws of Hendrix College.

Honorary degrees are conferred honoris causa, "for the sake of honor." Honorary degrees include but may not be limited to Doctor of Laws, honoris causa; Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa; or Doctor of Science, honoris causa.

In instances when an organization rather than an individual is granted the highest honorary commendation from the College, the honor is called the Spirit of Hendrix award. The process for the Spirit of Hendrix award is identical to the process for honorary degrees outlined below.

Criteria. An honorary degree may be awarded to a person or organization satisfying the following criteria:

• Outstanding accomplishment in the honoree's field, with national status wherever appropriate;
• Demonstration of the values articulated in the Statement of Purpose of the College, making the honoree a fitting role model for students;
• Some tie to Hendrix, Arkansas, or this region of the country which makes recognition especially appropriate.

Procedures. The following process is used by the College to select recipients of this honor starting in the Spring of 2008.

The following persons associated with Hendrix College are authorized to nominate candidates to receive honorary degrees:

• The President
• Current and former members of the Board of Trustees
• Current and retired members of the Faculty and Staff
• Alumni
• Current students
• Parents of current students and parents of alumni

Nominations are to be made to the Committee on Honorary Degrees using the Honorary Degree Nomination Form sent out with the call for nominations, appended to this document, or available upon request from the Chair of the Honorary Degrees Committee. The call for nominations is drafted by the Chair of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and is approved by the committee. Appropriate College channels are used to disseminate the call for nominations.

Honorary Degrees Committee membership includes: three full-time members of the Faculty appointed by the Committee on Committees, two members of the Board of Trustees of the College appointed by the chair of the Board of Trustees, one representative from the Alumni Board of Governors, and the Executive Vice President and Dean of Advancement and Planning as an ex officio member.

The Honorary Degrees Committee reviews nominations and discuss potential candidates’ fulfillment of the above listed criteria. Through a voting process, they narrow nominations to no more than three qualified recommended nominees. The final vote on nominees in the committee is conducted by secret ballot; at least 2/3 of the committee must vote in the affirmative for a particular nominee to move forward in the process. The Honorary Degrees Committee also determines which of the possible honors is suitable for each nominee (Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Humane Letters, Doctor of Science, or Spirit of Hendrix). A list of nominations, along with summarized supporting information for each nominee, is submitted to the Academic Policy Council for discussion following the same process as recommendations from other faculty standing committees. Academic Policy places the item on the faculty meeting agenda for discussion. At the following faculty meeting the Faculty selects, through normal voting procedures, the final candidate to be recommended to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, through normal voting procedures, votes to either affirm or deny the conferral of the honorary degree.

Timeline for Honorary Degree Nomination, Deliberation, and Conferral

The nomination and deliberation process is conducted with the strictest confidentiality at every point in the process.

Generally, the College shall award one, but no more than one, honorary degree in a single academic year.

Expiration of the board’s approval. The College may award an honorary degree to an approved candidate at any time within two years of the Board's granting of that approval. After that time, the Honorary Degrees Committee must reconsider the nominee and again secure the Faculty recommendation and Board's approval of the candidate.

Limitations. No honorary degree shall be conferred unless the recipient is present at conferral except in the rare event that the degree is being awarded posthumously.

The College shall not grant an honorary degree to current members of the Faculty or Administration.

Recipients of honorary degrees shall not usually receive a speaker's fee or honorarium. However, travel and lodging expenses may be covered by the College. In exceptional circumstances the Honorary Degrees Committee may request that the Board provide an honorarium to the recipient of an honorary degree.

A nomination form appears in the Faculty Resources section of the Hendrix website.

Hendrix College encourages and seeks to facilitate the professional development of all faculty members. Toward this end, the College funds the Faculty Grant programs, which are administered by the Committee on Faculty Grants. 

Faculty Travel Grants

Faculty may apply for and receive up to $1200 per academic year to attend scholarly conferences, seminars, workshops, and meetings of professional societies. These grants are awarded on a rolling basis until the funds for travel grants that year are depleted.

Faculty Project Grants

These grants are awarded to enhance the teaching, research, and professional activity of the faculty who receive them. There is not a set maximum amount awarded through Faculty Project Grants, but requests typically range from $400 to $14,000. The grant is intended to cover expenses incurred during the course of the project and may include funds to be spent for travel, equipment, appropriate professional credentials or degrees, books or journals, and other materials deemed essential to the project. Funds may also be used to pay student assistants. Proposals should be submitted to the Faculty Grants Committee before February 1. 

Faculty Odyssey Project Grants

Odyssey Project Grants are similar in nature to the Faculty Project grants described above, but are designed specifically to promote Faculty efforts to enhance the offerings of Odyssey experiences at Hendrix. As is the case with Faculty Project Grants, Odyssey projects may but not necessarily have to involve student participation, but should in any event have as their ultimate goal the creation of new or enhanced experiential learning opportunities for students in any of the six designated Odyssey categories. The timing and duration of the project and the types of expenditures envisioned likewise mirror those for Faculty Project Grants.

The specifics of the proposal process is described in the Odyssey Program Guide and regularly reviewed by the Committee on Experiential Learning, in coordination with the Odyssey Program Director. Under ordinary circumstances, Odyssey project grants are awarded according to the following schedule: February 15 (for summer projects and courses for the following academic year), April 15 (for fall projects), and October 15 (for spring projects). However, applicants who must have assurance of funding further in advance than these deadlines allow are encouraged to consult with the Odyssey office. In cases where there are extenuating circumstances (such as timetables imposed by external constituencies), applicants may be given permission to apply during an earlier cycle than usual.

Faculty Teaching and Pedagogy Workshop Grants

Faculty may also apply for and receive up to $1200 per academic year to attend teaching and pedagogy workshops, which may be part of a scholarly meeting they already plan to attend. This grant may be awarded in addition to a Faculty Travel Grant. If the workshop is part of a professional meeting, faculty may request funds for lodging and meals for the duration of the workshop, as well as costs associated with the workshop, such as registration. If the workshop is not part of a professional meeting, faculty can additionally request funds for travel. These grants are awarded on a rolling basis until the funds for Teaching and Pedagogy Workshop grants that year are depleted.

Pedagogy Grants

Pedagogy grants fund work directed toward enhancing an existing course or designing, developing, and launching a new course taught in the following academic year. Maximum grant awards will be $2000 for course enhancements and $4000 for new courses or their equivalent. Faculty stipends can be requested as part of these grants, for a maximum of $1000 for course enhancements and $2000 for new courses or their equivalent. Pedagogy Grant proposals are due by December 15.

Mellon Course Development Grants

The College was awarded a $500,000 grant from the Mellon Foundation to fund diversity and inclusion initiatives. Part of these funds are dedicated to Course Development Grants. Faculty may apply for Mellon Course Development Grants of up to $3,000 to develop new courses appropriate for their departmental curricula or to revise existing courses to incorporate inclusive content and/or learn new pedagogies that are supportive of diversity and inclusion. Mellon Course Development Grant proposals are due by December 15.

Faculty Odyssey Project Grants

Odyssey Project Grants are designed specifically to promote faculty efforts to enhance the offerings of Odyssey experiences at Hendrix. As is the case with Faculty Project Grants, Odyssey projects may but not necessarily have to involve student participation, but should in any event have as their ultimate goal the creation of new or enhanced experiential learning opportunities for students in any of the six designated Odyssey categories. Under ordinary circumstances, Odyssey project grants are awarded according to the following schedule: February 15 (for summer projects and courses for the following academic year), April 15 (for fall projects), and October 15 (for spring projects). 

Hendrix Odyssey Professorships

Twelve Hendrix Odyssey Professorships provide financial resources for selected faculty members to develop academic courses and engaged learning experiences that further enrich the experience of Hendrix students, and to continue their own professional development in ways that complement their work with students. All full-time tenured and tenure-track members of the Hendrix faculty are eligible to apply. Faculty members who wish to be considered for Odyssey Professorships will submit proposals for periods of one to three years, with the possibility of extending their grants for as much as two additional years. The Professorships carry an annual award amount of up to $25,000 for each of the years of the Professorship. Hendrix Odyssey Professorship applications are typically due October 31.

Hendrix-Murphy Grants

The mission of the Hendrix-Murphy Foundation is to enhance and enrich the study of literature and language at Hendrix College. Faculty who are engaged in work with students can receive funding for group travel for study or research in literature or language, writing or language immersion retreats, faculty-led service projects in literature and language, and course-related field work in literature or language. Deadlines for grant proposals are October 1 for winter and spring projects, February 1 for spring and summer projects, and April 1 for late-developing summer projects and fall projects. Please click here for detailed information about the Hendrix-Murphy program, examples of the types of projects the program funds, and instructions for completing grant proposals.

External Grant and Foundation Support

The College also encourages faculty members to seek and secure funding for their work from outside agencies, such as government, foundation, and consortium programs. One example is the Arkansas INBRE program.

Arkansas INBRE

The Arkansas IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (Arkansas INBRE) is funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences under the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and provides funds for faculty engaging in biomedical and behavioral research. Funding opportunities include Research Development Grants of up to $235,000 (applications due June 1), Pilot Study Grants of up to $40,000 (applications due March 1), and Summer Research Grants of up to $25,500 (applications due January 23). Funds are also available for seminar speakers and mini-sabbaticals for faculty who want to receive technical training that benefits their research.

Grant Approval Process

All grant applications initiated by or for the benefit of Faculty must first be approved by the Provost. The proposal budget must also be reviewed and approved by the Business Office prior to submitting the Grant. Grant applications or proposals submitted for approval must be endorsed by the chair of the sponsoring academic or administrative department and by the Area Chair.

Step 1: Discuss the proposed project with the Provost, including detailed information on College matching requirements (if any). The Provost advises the initiator regarding the fit of the project with the College’s academic program.

Step 2: Discuss the proposed budget with the Grants Manager in the Business Office, including detailed information on College matching requirements (if any). This is to ensure that the fringe benefits and the indirect cost requirements are properly submitted (if applicable).

Step 3: If the proposed project requires matching funds or in-kind resources from the College, the initiator must have approval from both the Provost and Vice President for Business and Finance before submitting to the granting agency or organization. If the proposed project involves matching funds to be raised externally by the College, the initiator must discuss the proposal with the Dean of Advancement for initial approval, who then discusses it with the President for final approval.

Step 4: Write the proposal, following all guidelines as documented in the RFP or funder publication(s), consulting with the Director of Foundation Relations, the Grants Coordinator, and the Provost as appropriate.

Step 5: Using the External Grant Approval form (included in Appendix 8), submit the proposal to the appropriate officials for approval.

Step 6: The Provost indicates approval of the proposal to the Dean of Advancement and the President.

Step 7: Submit a copy of all proposals for external funding to the Director of Foundation Relations.

Step 8: If a grant is awarded, copies of the award letter and/or receipt of funds must be sent to the Provost, the Director of Foundation Relations, the Grants Coordinator, and the Director of Media Relations.

Grant Budgeting and Indirect Cost Recovery

Hendrix currently has a federally approved rate for indirect costs of 62%. In drafting grant proposals, and when permitted by the granting agency, departments should budget indirect costs of 62% on all direct salaries. Fringe benefits are based on a number of different scenarios, so it is important to contact the Grants Manager to ensure proper requirements.

Funds derived from indirect cost recovery are first allocated to the income accounts of the College’s operating budget to support the cost of administering the grant and utilization of campus facilities, and then allocated in a portion to the departments for use on low cost equipment repair or student/faculty research and development costs.

This policy is reviewed on a periodic basis to determine the actual expenses incurred by the College to administer the grants awarded. Based upon these findings, the indirect cost allocation rate may be adjusted at any time during the academic year.

Questions concerning budgeting or indirect cost recovery should be directed to the Grants Manager in the Business Office.

Grant Compensation

All compensation from grants, whether as a principal investigator at Hendrix or as a sub-guarantee with another institution, must be approved in advance by the Provost.

Subject to the approval of the President, the Provost establishes the level of compensation and release time for any participants, and has final approval over all research and staffing participation for all grants. The regular and scheduled academic needs of the College are the primary consideration in determining a faculty member’s participation in a grant activity.

Compensation from grant activity during summer months cannot exceed a monthly rate equal to the regular monthly salary or wages of the participant.

All College Human Resources policies and practices for compensation and fringe benefits are followed. Compensation from grants, regardless of the funding source, are issued on payroll checks. Federal Income Taxes and F.I.C.A. taxes are withheld on all grant checks, as required by the Internal Revenue Service. See Appendix 6 for Business Office guidelines for grants.

Grant Reporting

It is the responsibility of the principal investigator to make sure that all progress reports, budget reports, and fund requests are submitted on a timely basis as defined within the grant. Copies of each report submitted to the granting agency should be forwarded to the Grants Manager in the Business Office and the director of Foundation Relations in the Advancement Office.

Assistance in Writing Grant Proposals

The Director of Foundation Relations in the Advancement Office coordinates grant proposals for College-wide purposes and, upon approval by the Provost and the Dean of Advancement, assists with proposals for individuals.

Fundraising by Faculty or Student Organizations

Except as provided herein, all fundraising activities must be conducted only under the auspices of the Office of Advancement (OA).

The OA is responsible for coordinating all fundraising except grants related to professional development (e.g. NSF, NEH, residencies, etc.). Charitable support through fundraising is sought from individuals, corporations, foundations, and other private sources. All efforts to seek philanthropic support from these sources must receive prior approval as described below, and shall be coordinated through the Office of Advancement.

All fundraising efforts by administrative departments, academic departments (including individual Faculty members) and any student organization must first be approved by the Senior Leadership Team member who is responsible for the area seeking funding. The Senior Leadership member will then seek approval from the OA. Fundraising efforts for athletics must be approved by the Athletics Director prior to being reviewed by the OA. Upon approval by the OA, all gifts and grants received, except grants related to professional development, must be received and documented by the OA in accordance with their processes and procedures.

The two-tier Hendrix College Writing Requirement grew out of the Faculty’s conviction that students need more systematic instruction and practice in writing than they could receive by completing a first-year composition course. Moreover, research has shown that even competent writers must practice their skills over the years and in different contexts or else lose some of their competence.

Level 1

The Level 1, or W1, courses serve as the gateway to the College’s writing requirement. As such, these courses are designed to “increase the student’s skill in writing expository prose,” by enabling the student to understand that “effective communication reflects coherent thinking and that both require clarity, precision, and forcefulness.”

Academic Policies for W1 Courses

To meet the Level 1 writing requirement a student must

• receive a C or above in ENGL 110 Introduction to Academic Writing, or ENGL 210 Advanced Academic Writing at Hendrix; or
• receive a grade of C or above in a course at Hendrix from the category Introduction to Literary Studies (These courses are identified by the code W1 in the most recent Schedule of Classes); or
• receive a grade of C or above on a transfer student examination in written English administered by the Writing Center at Hendrix and certified by the English Department.

Each student must meet this requirement during the first or second year. Students may not use credits received from an Advanced Placement exam, an International Baccalaureate exam, or transfer courses to satisfy this requirement. Moreover, successful completion of the Level 1 writing examination does not satisfy the Literary Studies (LS) Learning Domain.

Completion of the Level 1 requirement is indicated on the student transcript.

Level 2

The Level 2 (Writing Intensive Course), or W2, requirement provides an opportunity for students to focus their attention on modes of writing unique to the various academic disciplines. These writing intensive (W2) courses incorporate aspects of stylistics, critical thinking, and disciplinary content. But if students, both skilled and unskilled, are to make real progress with their writing, they need to apply analytical attention to their writing processes. Few can do this well on their own. For students to make serious improvements in their writing skills, they must have more than rigorous assignments, tough grading policies, and comprehensive professorial comments on returned papers; they must know how to analyze strengths and weaknesses in their writing for improving those processes. Thus, the Faculty who teach writing intensive courses (W2) are those persons conversant with content and process, with course material and writing theory. These faculty can help our students unite and differentiate content and process.

In 1989 when the Faculty passed the Curriculum Committee proposal to add writing intensive courses (W2) to the curriculum as a graduation requirement, the following guidelines were adopted:

• W2 courses are at the sophomore level or above;
• W2 courses may be used to meet other departmental, area, or general education requirements as appropriate;
• W2 courses should have no more than twenty (20) students; exceptions to this limit are considered by the WAC Director;
• W2 courses must include a minimum of three (3) writing assignments; students should be assigned papers of substantial length (5 pages or more), as appropriate to learning the conventions and practices of the discipline;
• W2 courses may require a variety of writing forms, including formal essays, mathematical proofs, short philosophical arguments, research papers, essay examinations, and so forth;
• Regardless of the type of writing required, the writing process must be ongoing throughout the semester—that is, students must periodically turn in drafts, receive written and oral feedback from the instructor, and have the opportunity to revise their work;
• W2 credit is based on each instructor’s reading of his or her student’s portfolio; each portfolio is read holistically;
• W2 credit is earned only with the successful submission of the required writing and only when that writing shows the student to be proficient in writing;
• Enrollment in and completion of a W2 course does not automatically guarantee receipt of W2 credit;
• Failure to receive W2 credit for any course is not recorded on the student’s transcript;
• The degree of proficiency needed to receive W2 credit is based on those traits of successful writing listed below in “Expectations for the Writing Intensive (W2) Courses,” borrowed (with permission) from Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame.

We want to encourage our students to complete at least one writing intensive course in their major. Moreover, we want to encourage them to complete the W2 course in the junior or senior year. The space between completing the W1 requirement and enrolling for W2 requirement should give them an opportunity to develop their writing skills, to acquire content in their discipline, and to develop a stronger motivation for writing well in their discipline.

Learning Outcomes for Writing Intensive (W2) Courses 

In order to earn W2 credit a student must be able to organize a short paper which articulates and develops an argument. The prose should be grammatically correct, the diction appropriate to the audience and topic, and the sentences well-structured and clear.

• Organization and Coherence. A student who earns W2 credit has demonstrated his or her ability to write fluent, clear, and logical short papers, marshaling the necessary information to respond to a well-structured and clearly explained assignment. The student is able to present this information to an educated audience, simultaneously conveying the student’s viewpoint on the topic.
• Thesis. A student who earns W2 credit has learned to formulate, develop, and summarize a thesis. In the thesis statement the student indicates the direction of the paper and then develops this thesis with supporting illustrations and arguments. The conclusion creates an effective sense of closure that does not simply repeat the thesis.
• Grammatical Correctness. Students who earn W2 credit have demonstrated their ability to proofread their papers and to spell and punctuate properly. Many students, however, continue to have difficulty with these three skills. Every professor, therefore, needs to stress these skills constantly and to offer assistance and encouragement when needed. Among the common grammatical problems a successful W2 student is expected to avoid are fragments, run-on sentences, dangling modifiers, lack of agreement, inconsistent use of tenses, vague pronoun reference, and errors in common usage.
• Diction and Sentence Structure. W2 courses help students to improve their diction and use fairly sophisticated sentence structure. A W2 student learns to choose appropriate words for the assigned audience and topic. In order to be competent writers, students also learn to subordinate their ideas properly through the use of both simple and complex sentences. Sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structure develop over time as the student reads more widely.

Students who receive W2 credit are not always accomplished writers. W2 credit certifies only that they can organize and give expression to a relatively limited body of material in a particular discipline and express a clear opinion about the subject matter. A few students’ writing is outstanding and needs little attention from their other professors. Many students, however, need constant assistance throughout their college career in developing and formulating their ideas, especially as the subject matter of upper-division courses becomes more difficult and assignments demand more sophisticated kinds of analyses. Every teacher in a liberal arts college has a responsibility to develop his or her students’ ability to think critically and to write clearly.

The Portfolio in W2 Courses 

Ideally, the portfolio should contain the following:

• A paper from any point in the semester and its revised version;
• A paper from near the end of the semester, unrevised;
• An in-class writing sample, i.e., essay examination, lab report, and so forth.

Faculty may modify these suggestions as long as the “coaching” of the writing process is ongoing and the student presents a minimum of three writing assignments, one of which must be at least five (5) pages.

Academic Policies for W2 Courses

To meet the Level 2 writing requirement, a student must receive writing proficiency certification (including earning a grade of C or higher), or W2 credit, in a writing intensive course offered by any department of the College. Writing intensive courses are identified by W2 in the most recent Schedule of Classes.

W2 courses are sophomore-level and above. W2 courses may be used to meet other requirements, as appropriate. W2 credit is not given until a student has completed the Level 1 requirement, and a student may not complete both Level 1 and Level 2 requirements in the same semester.

W2 credit must be completed at Hendrix College. Students may not use credits received from an Advanced Placement exam, an International Baccalaureate exam, or transfer courses to satisfy this requirement.

Completion of the Level 2 requirement is indicated on the student transcript.

W2 Course Designation and Approval Process 

All regularly scheduled courses with the W2 designation must have that designation approved by the Writing Across the Curriculum Committee before the designation can be listed on the schedule of classes. For new courses, the designation can be requested as part of the regular curricular approval process, and the Curriculum Committee contacts the WAC Committee as needed. For existing courses, the designation should be requested directly from the WAC Committee. In either case, approval must have been received before the schedule of courses has been finalized. All sections of an approved course do not have to carry the W2 designation. Once a course has approval for the W2 designation, future sections of the course retain the designation unless the faculty member removes the designation.

Faculty members who want to offer an independent study course with the W2 designation must have that designation approved by the Writing Across the Curriculum Committee before the usual course “add” deadline (one week from the start of classes).

Course Syllabus for W2 Courses

The syllabus for any course with the W2 designation should explain the assignments required of the student who wants to receive W2 credit for the course.

Course Enrollment for W2 Courses 

During the first week of classes, classroom teachers receive confirmation rosters for all courses. For those courses designated W2, the confirmation rosters also have a section where each student who wishes to receive W2 credit for the course must indicate that intent. Students are reminded on this roster that

• Students cannot add their names to this list after the classroom teacher has returned the confirmation roster. However, students who add the course before the usual course “add” deadline (one week from the start of classes) may also add their names to the confirmation rosters at that time.
• There is no penalty—i.e., no notation appears on the student transcript if the student does not complete the requirements for W2 credit for this course.
• Students who do not make a C or higher in the course or who later drop the regular class cannot receive W2 credit or the course.
• These rosters are used to generate separate W2 sections for each course. At the end of the semester classroom teachers report W2 credit on the W2 section roster. For each student on the W2 roster who has completed the W2 requirements for the course, the classroom teacher chooses the grade CR. All other grades are ignored. Successful completion is noted on the student's transcript and the student’s course history. However, lack of completion is NOT noted on the student's transcript.

I.  Introduction.

General Policy.  Hendrix College is committed to high standards of honesty and fairness in academic pursuits. Such standards are central to the process of intellectual inquiry, the development of character, and the preservation of integrity of the community. Accordingly, in keeping with this mission the Hendrix College seeks to maintain an atmosphere of integrity in research activities pursued by the community of its learners. Such an atmosphere in research endeavors is built on a commitment to some important shared values for the responsible conduct of research, such as, honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity. Hendrix College strictly adheres to this philosophy, and has an infrastructure in place to prevent misconduct in research and to support good faith whistleblowers.

Scope.  This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals at Hendrix College engaged in research that is supported by or for which support is requested from PHS.  The PHS regulation at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A applies to any research, research-training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with PHS.  This policy applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators at Hendrix College.

For research and scholarly activity not falling under PHS guidelines, research integrity is expected to be followed as described in the General Policy. Cases of misconduct in non-PHS supported projects should also be reported to the Academic Integrity Officer of Hendrix College. If the Academic Integrity Officer finds sufficient evidence of misconduct, the procedures outlined in Parts V-VIII described below will be initiated.

Cases of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC and/or Human Subjects Research Board (HSRB) violations will also be forwarded to the Academic Integrity Officer, who will then determine if these violations constitute research integrity misconduct.

The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible misconduct in science is received by an institutional official.  Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure deemed in the best interests of Hendrix College and PHS.  Any change from normal procedures also must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the inquiry or investigation.  Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the Research Integrity Officer of Hendrix College.

II.  Definitions.

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

Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of scientific misconduct and any responsive institutional actions.  The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the institution's inquiry, investigation, or allegation assessment.

Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that scientific 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.

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

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.

ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service.

PHS means the U.S. Public Health Service, an operating component of the DHHS.

PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A, entitled "Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science."

PHS support means PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications therefore.

Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of scientific misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and investigations. 

Research 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 research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of scientific misconduct.  A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; 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; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of scientific 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.

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

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

Whistleblower means a person who makes an allegation of scientific misconduct.

III.  Rights and Responsibilities.

Research Integrity Officer.  The Natural Sciences Area Chair of Hendrix College will serve as the Research Integrity Officer who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document.  The Research Integrity Officer will be an institutional official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

The Research Integrity Officer will appoint 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 Research Integrity Officer will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.

The Research Integrity Officer will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources.  The Research Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.

Deciding Official.  The Deciding Official, the Provost of Hendrix College, will report to ORI as required by regulation and keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

Whistleblower.  The whistleblower 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 Research Integrity Officer has determined that the whistleblower may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the whistleblower for comment.

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

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 will also have the opportunity 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 counsel.

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 scientific misconduct, he or she has the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation.

Deciding Official.  The Deciding Official will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any written comments made by the respondent or the whistleblower on the draft report.  The Deciding Official will consult with the Research 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 section X].

IV.  General Policies and Principles.

Responsibility to Report Misconduct.  All employees or individuals associated with Hendrix College should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in science to the Research Integrity Officer.   If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of scientific misconduct, he or she may call the Research Integrity Officer to discuss the suspected misconduct informally.  If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of scientific misconduct, the Research 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 Research Integrity Officer, and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

Protecting the Whistleblower.  The Research 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 Research 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 Research Integrity Officer.

Also the institution will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith[i] to the maximum extent possible.  For example, if the whistleblower requests anonymity, the institution 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 whistleblower will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the whistleblower's testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed.  Institutions are required to undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.

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.

Institutional employees accused of scientific misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel or personal adviser to interviews or meetings on the case. 

Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations.  Institutional employees will cooperate with the Research Integrity Officer and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations.  Employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the Research Integrity Officer or other institutional officials on misconduct allegations.

Preliminary Assessment of Allegations.  Upon receiving an allegation of scientific misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, whether PHS support or PHS applications for funding are involved, and whether the allegation falls under the PHS definition of scientific misconduct.

V.  Conducting the Inquiry.

Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry.  Following the preliminary assessment, if the Research Integrity Officer determines that the allegation provides sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, involves PHS support, and falls under the PHS definition of scientific misconduct, he or she will immediately initiate the inquiry process.  In initiating the inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer should identify clearly 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, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific 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.

Sequestration of the Research Records.  After determining that an allegation falls within the definition of misconduct in science and involves PHS funding, the Research Integrity Officer must ensure that all original research records and materials relevant to the allegation are immediately secured.  The Research Integrity Officer may consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard.

Appointment of the Inquiry Committee.  The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within 10 days of the initiation of the inquiry.  The inquiry committee should consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry.  These individuals may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution. 

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership in 10 days.  If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee or expert based on bias or conflict of interest within 5 days, the Research Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.

Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting.  The Research 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, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to warrant an investigation as required by the PHS regulation.  The purpose is not to determine whether scientific misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.

At the committee's first meeting, the Research 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 Research Integrity Officer and institutional counsel will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

Inquiry Process.  The inquiry committee will normally interview the whistleblower, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examining relevant research records and materials.  Then the inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry.  After consultation with the Research Integrity Officer and institutional counsel, the committee members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to recommend further investigation.  The scope of the inquiry does not include deciding whether misconduct occurred or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses.

VI.  The Inquiry Report. 

Elements of the Inquiry Report.  A written inquiry report must be prepared that states the name and title of the committee members and experts, if any; the allegations; the PHS support; a summary of the inquiry process used; a list of the research records reviewed; summaries of any interviews; a description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether and investigation is warranted or not; and the committee's determination as to whether an investigation is recommended and whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation is not recommended.  Institutional counsel will review the report for legal sufficiency.

Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Whistleblower.  The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the whistleblower, if he or she is identifiable, with a summary of the inquiry findings for comment.

• Confidentiality.  The Research Integrity Officer may establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.
• Receipt of Comments.  Within 14 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the whistleblower and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the inquiry committee.  Any comments that the whistleblower or respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the report as appropriate.

Inquiry Decision and Notification. 

• Decision by Deciding Official.  The Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final report and any comments to the Deciding Official, who will make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to justify conducting an investigation.  The inquiry is completed when the Deciding Official makes this determination, which will be made within 60 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.
• Notification.  The Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and the whistleblower in writing of the Deciding Official's decision of whether to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of their obligation to cooperate in the event an investigation is opened.  The Research Integrity Officer will also notify all appropriate institutional officials of the Deciding Official's decision.

Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report.  The inquiry committee will normally complete the inquiry and submit its report in writing to the Research Integrity Officer no more than 60 calendar days following its first meeting, unless the Research Integrity Officer approves an extension for good cause.  If the Research Integrity Officer approves an extension, the reason for the extension will be entered into the records of the case and the report. The respondent also will be notified of the extension.

VII.  Conducting the Investigation

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 research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice.  The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.

Sequestration of the Research Records.  The Research Integrity Officer will immediately sequester any additional pertinent research 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 need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution's decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured.  The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

Appointment of the Investigation Committee.  The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee and the committee chair within 10 days of the notification to the respondent that an investigation is planned or as soon thereafter as practicable.  The investigation committee should consist of at least three individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation.  These individuals may be scientists, administrators, subject matter experts, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution.  Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry committee. 

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership within 5 days.  If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee or expert, the Research Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.

Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting. 

• Charge to the Committee.  The Research 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 scientific 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, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, scientific 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 Research 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.
• The First Meeting.  The Research Integrity Officer, with the assistance of institutional counsel, will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan.  The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of these instructions and, where PHS funding is involved, the PHS regulation.

Investigation Process.  The investigation committee will be appointed and the process initiated within 30 days of the completion of the inquiry, if findings from that inquiry provide a sufficient basis for conducting an investigation.

The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. Whenever possible, the committee should interview the whistleblower(s), the respondents(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 comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file.

VIII.  The Investigation Report

Elements of the Investigation Report.  The final report submitted to ORI must describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, 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 as well as a description of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken by the institution.

Comments on the Draft Report. 

• Respondent.  The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal.  The respondent will be allowed 30 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.
• Whistleblower.  The Research Integrity Officer will provide the whistleblower, if he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the whistleblower's role and opinions in the investigation.  The report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the whistleblower's comments.
• Institutional Counsel.  The draft investigation report will be transmitted to the institutional counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency.  Comments should be incorporated into the report as appropriate.
• Confidentiality.  In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and whistleblower, the Research 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 Research Integrity Officer may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement or to come to his or her office to review the report.

Institutional Review and Decision.  Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Deciding Official will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions.  If this determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the Deciding Official will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee in the institution's letter transmitting the report to ORI.  The Deciding Official's explanation should be consistent with the PHS definition of scientific misconduct, the institution's policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee.  The Deciding Official may also return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.  The Deciding Official's determination, together with the investigation committee's report, constitutes the final investigation report for purposes of ORI review.

When a final decision on the case has been reached, the Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and the whistleblower in writing.  In addition, the Deciding Official 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 Research Integrity Officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.

Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to ORID.  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 whistleblower's comments, to the Deciding Official, through the Research Integrity Officer.

Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report.  An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 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 Deciding Official for approval, and submitting the report to the ORI.

IX.  Requirements for Reporting to ORI

An institution's decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the Director, ORI, 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 PHS definition of scientific misconduct, and the PHS applications or grant number(s) involved. ORI 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 ORI.

If an institution plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, the Research Integrity Officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.

If the institution determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 120 days, the Research Integrity Officer will submit to ORI a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken.  If the request is granted, the Research Integrity Officer will file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI.

When PHS funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of scientific misconduct is made, the Research Integrity Officer will contact 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 institution cannot accept an admission of scientific misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.

The Research Integrity Officer will notify ORI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:

• there is an immediate health hazard involved;
• there is an immediate need to protect Federal 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; or
• the allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g., a clinical trial; or
• there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation.  In this instance, the institution must inform ORI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

X.  Institutional Administrative Actions

Hendrix College will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated.

If the Deciding Official 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 Research Integrity Officer.  The actions may include:

• withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where scientific misconduct was found.
• removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
• restitution of funds as appropriate.

XI.  Other Considerations

Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation.  The termination of the respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible scientific misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.

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.

Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation.  If the institution finds no misconduct and ORI concurs, after consulting with the respondent, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation.  Depending on the particular circumstances, the Research Integrity Officer should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of scientific misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the scientific misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file.  Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the Deciding Official.

Protection of the Whistleblower and Others.  Regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that scientific misconduct occurred, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to protect whistleblowers who made allegations of scientific misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations.  Upon completion of an investigation, the Deciding Official will determine, after consulting with the whistleblower, what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of the whistleblower.  The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for implementing any steps the Deciding Official approves.  The Research Integrity Officer will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the whistleblower.

Allegations Not Made in Good Faith.  If relevant, the Deciding Official will determine whether the whistleblower's allegations of scientific misconduct were made in good faith.  If an allegation was not made in good faith, the Deciding Official will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the whistleblower.

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

XII.  Record Retention

After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the Research Integrity Officer will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the Research Integrity Officer or committees.  The Research Integrity Officer will keep the file for three years after completion of the case to permit later assessment of the case.  ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to the records upon request.