Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-6 begins here
Policy Regarding the Role of the Office of Research and Grant Development
The Office of Research and Grant Development is an academic service dedicated to enriching the professional development of faculty and equivalent- level staff by providing those individuals with opportunities for research and/or public service. In turn, those activities augment the instructional processes of the University.
By monitoring the current research and development interests of public agencies, private philanthropic organizations, and business, the office provides faculty with an important repository of information which can aid them in their efforts to keep abreast of new trends in virtually any field of study.
The office provides faculty with a central location from which they can seek colleagues from around the campus and the state whose specialized knowledge or talent is needed for a complex research study. Research and Grant Development will assist faculty when they seek to identify and contact professional associations. The knowledge and skills of the office director also serve as a valuable asset.
The office provides three types of services: technical assistance, information management, and skill/knowledge development. Technical assistance is given in the proposal preparation phase, the proposal submission phase, and the project administration phase. Information management includes searching for or identifying potential fundors, monitoring external events, and communicating that information to the University community. The development of skills and knowledge related to the process of grantsmanship takes place in one-on-one sessions with interested parties, formal events such as workshops, and linkage with individuals whose talents, pooled with the proposal's author(s), might enhance the proposal's chances of acceptance. The Office of Research and Grant Development Procedures and Guidance manual can be viewed at: http://www.semo.edu/grants/manual.htm.
Updated August 15, 1997
Updated October 5, 2005
Updated by Change Form May 28, 2008
Faculty Senate Bill 11-A-31 begins here
The Grants and Research Funding Committee of the Faculty Senate was organized
to encourage faculty involvement in research, scholarship, and creative projects.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 11-A-31 November 2, 2011
Reviewed by President November 2011
Approved by Board of Regents December 15, 2011
Faculty Senate Bill 11-A-32 begins here
Detailed guidelines and application procedures for these faculty development grants
are periodically revised and published in a separate booklet by the Grants and Research
Funding Committee. Please see http://www.semo.edu/facultysenate/committees/grantsandresearch_docs.html
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 11-A-32 November 2, 2011
Reviewed by President November 2011
Posted for 15 Day Review November 2011
The purpose of this policy is to protect the rights and benefits of Southeast Missouri State University, the people of Missouri, and the inventor, discoverer, or author in matters pertaining to patents and copyrights. Within this purpose it should be recognized that the objectives of the University do not encompass the invention or development of a product or process for commercial use. Patentable inventions, processes, etc., will instead be a by-product of the usual intellectual endeavors of the faculty and staff of the University.
Any invention or discovery made by an employee of the University or resulting from research carried on under the direction of an employee in which the University may have an interest shall be promptly reported by such discoverer to the Grants and Research Funding Committee. The committee shall review related data and information and make recommendations concerning financial terms and problems concerned with the development and administration of such inventions and discoveries and patents secured thereon. The committee shall make recommendations to the President concerning the disposition and terms of administration of such inventions and discoveries.
Faculty Senate Bill 83-A-04 begins here.
Except in cases where other arrangements have been specifically agreed to in writing, it shall be the policy of Southeast Missouri State University to permit University employees and students to retain in full all copyright and patent privileges resulting from their usual intellectual endeavors. In cases where University support or sponsorship has been provided, the recovery of institutional costs shall:
Residual profits shall be defined herein as total profits generated by a copyrighted or patented product or process minus all costs borne by the individual or group owning those products' or processes' copyright or patent privileges.
In all cases where University support or sponsorship has not been provided, the cost of administering or procuring copyright or patent privileges will not be borne by the University unless agreed to in writing by the Board of Regents. University support or sponsorship will be defined herein as:
In all cases where University support or sponsorship has been provided and institutional costs have been recovered, all monies resulting from the recovery of institutional costs shall be returned to the funding unit of the University from which support or sponsorship was provided.
Southeast Missouri State University and its Board of Regents disclaim and expressly deny any liability or responsibility for patent infringement or negligence on the part of any person or entity who may elect to obtain a patent or copyright under the provisions of this policy. Approved by Faculty Senate, Bill 83-A-04 - April, 1983 Approved by Board of Regents - May, 1983
Through its membership in AASCU, the University is able to use the services of the Research Corporation to assist faculty in obtaining a patent. The Research Corporation will evaluate the patent potential of an invention based on receipt of a Disclosure Submission and Invention Administration Agreement. Neither the faculty member nor the institution bears any direct cost for the evaluation, nor if the invention is accepted, for the cost of filing. The Research Corporation will assume responsibility for marketing the product. Gross receipts are shared with the faculty member (subject to the University Patent Policy) receiving 57.5% of the gross income. Specific details may be obtained from the Office of Research and Grants.
Faculty Senate Bill 88-A-11 begins here.
Subject to (other provisions of the law). . ., the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
Notwithstanding the provisions of (the previous section). . ., the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies of phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include
Approved by Faculty Senate, Bill 88-A-11 - November 9, 1988 Approved by Board of Regents - December 1988
Additional Information Regarding Copyrights
Faculty wishing more information about copyrights under federal law should
consult Title 17 of the U.S. Code, especially Sections 106 and 107, portions
which are duplicated below:
Faculty Senate Bill 88-A-11 begins here.
Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works
Subject to (other provisions of the law). . ., the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
Please refer to section on PHOTOCOPYING COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS FOR TEACHING AND RESEARCH
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-14 begins here
Science rests on a foundation of mutual trust. To an extraordinary degree, that trust is thoroughly justified. However, scientists are subject to all human frailties and temptations, including at times the temptation to engage in scientific misconduct. Though such misconduct is rare, once misconduct is detected, it must be dealt with quickly and forcefully in order to sustain the atmosphere of trust necessary for science. Not only must individual scientists behave in a trustworthy manner, scientists must also take collective responsibility for detecting, judging, and controlling scientific misconduct. This is not an easy task for an enterprise founded on integrity; trust must not be replaced with suspiciousness. However, when there is ample reason to suspect misconduct, that information should be brought to the attention of individuals responsible for assuring that scientists connected with their institution are behaving responsibly. To that end, Southeast Missouri State University has established a policy on scientific misconduct, has designated an officer responsible for receiving allegations of scientific misconduct, and has created a process for resolving such allegations.
A crucial element of any fair and effective policy on scientific misconduct is a process that will distinguish instances of genuine and serious misconduct from insignificant deviations from acceptable practices. The policy proposed in this document will allow such distinctions to be made in a manner that minimizes disruptiveness and protects the conscientious, honest scientist from false, trivial or mistaken accusations.
Misconduct includes 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.
An information-gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation of misconduct warrants an investigation.
A formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if an instance of misconduct has taken place. If misconduct is confirmed, the investigation should determine the seriousness of the offense and the extent of any adverse effects resulting from the misconduct.
Guiding Principles of This Policy
Approved by Faculty Senate, Bill 90-A-05 - April 4, 1990 Approved by Board of Regents - May 4, 1990 Reenacted with slight amendment by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-14 approved by the Faculty Senate April 4, 2012 and by the Board of Regents May 12, 2012
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-15 begins here
These procedures shall apply to faculty, administrative and professional staff, and graduate students. The University process for handling allegations of scientific misconduct involves three stages: inquiry, investigation, and resolution. All parties involved in the process shall be entitled to consultation with legal counsel (at his/her own expense) in all meetings relating to the alleged misconduct.
Southeast Missouri State University has a responsibility to pursue an allegation of scientific misconduct fully and to resolve questions regarding the integrity of research. In the inquiry and any investigation which may follow, the University will attempt to focus on the substance of the issues and be vigilant so that personal conflicts between colleagues do not obscure the facts.
In order to address all allegations of scientific misconduct expeditiously, Southeast Missouri State University designates the Dean of the Graduate School as the administrator to whom allegations are to be reported. If he/she has a conflict of interests with a case, the allegation will be pursued by the Provost in accordance with the procedures described in this policy document.
The Dean of the Graduate School will pursue all allegations to resolution. He/she will consult in confidence with any individual who comes forward with an allegation of scientific misconduct. If the Dean of the Graduate School determines that the concern should be addressed through this policy, the subsequent inquiry and investigation procedures will be discussed with the complainant. If the complainant chooses not to make a formal allegation but the Dean of the Graduate School believes there is sufficient cause to warrant an inquiry, the matter will be pursued. In such a case, there is no complainant for the purposes of this document.
Even if the respondent leaves the institution before the case is resolved, Southeast Missouri State University has a responsibility to continue the examination of the allegations and reach a conclusion. Further, Southeast Missouri State University will cooperate with the processes of other involved institutions to resolve such questions.
Whenever an allegation of misconduct is filed, the Dean of the Graduate School will initiate an inquiry--the first step of the review process. In the inquiry stage, factual information is gathered and expeditiously reviewed to determine if an investigation of the charge is warranted. An inquiry is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations.
The inquiry process may be handled with or without a formal committee. Regardless of the approach chosen, it is the responsibility of the Dean of the Graduate School to ensure that the inquiry is conducted in a fair and just manner. The Dean of the Graduate School shall informally review any allegation of misconduct and confer on the merit of the allegation and need to form an inquiry committee with a dean of one of the colleges not represented by the complainant or respondent. The Dean of the Graduate School will determine whether the allegation should be addressed through this policy. If individuals are chosen to assist in the inquiry process, they should have no real or apparent conflicts of interests with the case in question, be unbiased, and have an appropriate background for judging the issues being raised. If the alleged scientific misconduct is a failure to comply with regulations regarding the use of human subjects or laboratory animals in research, members of the inquiry committee may be selected by the Dean of the Graduate School from the appropriate University compliance committee(s) for human and/or animal subjects.
Upon initiation of an inquiry, the Dean of the Graduate School will notify the respondent in writing within a reasonable period of time of the charges and the process that will follow. If the committee method is to be used, the committee members will be appointed and convened.
Whether a case can be reviewed effectively without the involvement of the complainant depends upon the nature of the allegation and the evidence available. Cases that depend specifically upon the observations or statements of the complainant cannot proceed without the open involvement of the individual; other cases that can rely on documentary evidence may permit the complainant to remain anonymous. During the inquiry, confidentiality is essential in order to protect the rights of all parties involved.
The respondent will be given copies of written documents (if any) that support the allegations. To ensure the safety of any written documents associated with the allegation, committee members will be asked to review a copy of such documents within the office of the Dean of the Graduate School.
When the inquiry is initiated, the respondent will be reminded of the obligation to cooperate in providing the material necessary to conduct the inquiry. Uncooperative behavior may result in immediate implementation of a formal investigation and other appropriate institutional sanctions. The respondent will be invited to present a written response to the allegations, and this response will become a part of the case file maintained by the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School.
Due to the sensitive nature of an alleged case of scientific misconduct, the University will strive to resolve each case expeditiously. The inquiry phase will normally be completed and a written report of the findings filed for the institution's own record within thirty days of written notification to the respondent. A thirty-day period meets the federal regulatory requirements. If the committee anticipates that the established deadline cannot be met, a report, citing the reasons for the delay and progress to date, will be filed with the Dean of the Graduate School, and the respondent and appropriately involved individuals will be informed by the thirty-fourth day.
Findings of the Inquiry
The completion of an inquiry is marked by a determination of whether or not an investigation is warranted. There will be written documentation to summarize the process and conclusion of the inquiry. The complainant and respondent will be informed by the Dean of the Graduate School of the outcome of the inquiry. Allegations found to require investigation will be forwarded to the investigative body discussed below. At this point, any agency sponsoring the research will be notified of a pending investigation.
If an allegation is found to be unjustified but has been submitted in good faith, no further formal action other than informing all involved parties will be taken. The proceedings of the inquiry, including the identity of the respondent, will be held in strict confidence to protect the parties involved.
If confidentiality is breached, the University will take reasonable steps to minimize the damage to reputations that may result from inaccurate reports. If an allegation is found to be unjustified and to have been maliciously motivated, disciplinary actions will be taken against anyone under University jurisdiction so involved.
Southeast Missouri State University will seek to protect the complainant against retaliation. Less senior people are particularly vulnerable. Individuals under the University's jurisdiction found engaging in acts of retaliation will be disciplined in accordance with appropriate institutional policies.
An investigation will be initiated only after an inquiry issues a finding that an investigation is warranted. The investigation's purpose is to explore further the allegations and determine whether there has been scientific misconduct. In the course of an investigation, additional information may emerge that justifies broadening the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegations. The respondent will be informed in writing when significant new directions of investigation are undertaken. The investigation will focus on accusations of misconduct as defined previously and examine the factual materials of each case. The investigation will look carefully at the substance of the charges and examine all relevant evidence.
The investigating body will be a five-person ad hoc committee appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School to handle the investigation. Members of the investigative committee should be chosen from within the University. Appropriate individuals outside the University may be selected if sufficient qualified members cannot be found from within the institution. Those investigating the allegations will be selected in full awareness of the closeness of their professional or personal affiliation with the complainant or the respondent. Any prospective member who has a conflict of interests in a case will not be permitted to be involved in that case. It is important, however, that the committee members have appropriate research expertise to assure a sound knowledge base from which to work.
Upon receipt of the inquiry finding that an investigation is warranted, the Dean of the Graduate School will initiate the investigation promptly. The complainant and respondent will be notified in writing of the investigation; the written summary of the inquiry stage will be included with this notification. All involved parties are obligated to cooperate with the proceedings in securing additional data related to the case. All necessary information will be provided to the respondent in a timely manner to facilitate the preparation of a response. The respondent will have the opportunity to address the charges and evidence in detail in consultation with legal counsel if he/she wishes.
In the interim, the University will, if necessary, act to protect the health and safety of research subjects, patients, and students. Administrative action could range from complete suspension to slight restrictions in the research activities of the respondent. Interim administrative action will be taken in full awareness of how it might affect other individuals and the ongoing research within the institution.
The written record for the investigative stage will be handled in the same manner as for the inquiry stage, i.e., one copy of the record will be given to the respondent. A second copy, maintained by the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School, will be available for inspection by the committee.
All significant developments during the investigation, as well as the final findings of the committee, will be reported to any sponsor of the research. When the investigation is concluded, all entities initially notified of the investigation will be informed of its final outcome.
The University will attempt to complete an investigation within 120 days. If the deadline cannot be met, an interim report will be submitted by the committee to the Dean of the Graduate School with a request for an extension.
The findings of the investigative committee will be submitted in writing to the Dean of the Graduate School. The respondent will receive the full report of the investigation.
In the event of a finding of scientific misconduct, Southeast Missouri State University will provide the respondent with an appeal opportunity. The grounds should be based either on the failure of the University to follow appropriate procedures or the presence of new evidence.
An appeal based on procedural violations should be made in writing to the Dean of the Graduate School. The appeal should be filed within 30 days of notification to the respondent of the committee's findings and include a list of specific violations. A proper reaction to the appeal should be made in writing by the Provost within two weeks of the filing of the appeal.
An appeal based on new evidence should be made in writing to the Dean of the Graduate School. The appeal should be filed within 30 days of the committee's findings and include a description of the new evidence and its relevancy to the case. A written reaction should be sent to the respondent from the Dean of the Graduate School within two weeks of the filing of the appeal. The decision of the appeal is final. The reaching of such a decision; or the failure of the respondent to submit an appeal within the stated 30 days; is considered to exhaust the appeal process.
When the investigation finds no support for allegations of scientific misconduct, all federal agencies, sponsors, or other entities initially informed of the investigation will be notified by the Dean of the Graduate School. The findings of the investigation will be sealed and retained in a confidential and secure file within the Office of the Graduate Studies.
If the allegations of misconduct were found to have been maliciously motivated, the appropriate administrative official (e.g., college dean or Provost) will be notified so appropriate disciplinary action can be taken against the responsible University employee. If the allegations, however incorrect, were found to have been made in good faith, no disciplinary measures will be taken, and efforts will be made to prevent retaliatory actions.
Notification - All federal agencies, sponsors, or other entities initially informed of the investigation will be notified of the findings of misconduct once the appeal process has been exhausted.
Consideration will also be given to formal notification of other involved parties after the appeal process has been exhausted. The following list of such parties is illustrative but not complete.
Disciplinary Action - University disciplinary action will be in proportion to the
misconduct. Possible actions could include termination of employment. The Dean of
the Graduate School, in consultation with the respondent's college dean, shall recommend
appropriate disciplinary action to the Provost.
Approved by Faculty Senate, Bill 90-A-05 - April 4, 1990 Approved by Board of Regents - May 4, 1990 Reenacted with slight amendment by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-15 approved by the Faculty Senate April 4, 2012 and by the President April 23, 2012, Posted for 15 Day Review April 2011
Faculty Senate Bill 16-A-13 begins here.
Southeast Missouri State University recognizes its role in society to further human knowledge, to advance the sum of such knowledge through teaching and research, and to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in research. Similarly, the University acknowledges the rights of the faculty, staff, students, and administrators to utilize appropriate educational methods and research techniques in their classes, in instructionally related activities and in Student Services programming and activities.
Human subjects are involved in many areas of research in which there is potential risk to the individual, such as experimental research utilizing drugs, vaccines, and radioactive materials. Less obvious are classroom or Student Services programming-related research activities in which different types of risks to human subjects may be present.
It is the policy of the University to establish and utilize procedures regarding research involving human subjects that protect the rights and well-being of those subjects, that facilitate the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and that maintain compliance with federal laws and regulations. Central to this effort shall be an Institutional Review Board (IRB), established and operating under provisions of Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46 (45 CFR 46) and regulated by the Office for Human Research Protections and any other federal agencies applicable to the specific research being conducted. The procedures of the IRB will be consistent with these federal regulations and operational standards. Any research activity conducted by the faculty, staff, students, or administrators involving human subjects will be reviewed by the IRB in accordance with established procedures.
Academic Affairs Revised April 1993
Reenacted with slight amendment by Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-17 approved by the Faculty Senate March 13, 2013, Reviewed by President April 5, 2013 and by the Board of Regents April 10, 2013. Revised by Faculty Senate Bill 16-A-13, Reviewed by President 11/15/16, Approved by Board of Regents 12/16/16.
Faculty Senate Bill 16-A-14 begins here
There shall be an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that shall be charged to maintain familiarity with federal guidelines concerning the use of human subjects in research; to review and recommend appropriate changes in institutional policies and procedures concerning the use of human subjects in research; and to review and make recommendations concerning proposed use of human subjects in research at the University.
The Provost shall appoint the committee chair and voting membership of the IRB as follows:
The terms of membership for the IRB members shall be three years, staggered to ensure an orderly rotation of members. Because members are required to undergo extensive training regarding federal rules and procedures, they shall not be limited to serving only one three-year term. Members may, however, not exceed two consecutive three-year terms, but may be reappointed following a one-year hiatus. The Dean of the School of Graduate Studies shall not be subject to any term limit. In addition to the above voting members, the IRB may also invite the participation of an undefined number of non-voting liaisons to assist it. A quorum of the Board shall be defined as a majority of its total voting membership.
It shall be the responsibility of the IRB to develop procedures for the submission and review of proposals for research involving human subjects so as to implement the policy established in this section. The IRB is authorized to develop its own internal operating procedures not inconsistent with this section and with federal law or procedures.
The IRB shall maintain a web page or similar mechanism to make available to the University community the appropriate forms, guidelines, etc. to be used when seeking approval for research involving human subjects. At least annually, the IRB shall issue a report on its activities to the Provost, with a copy provided to the Faculty Senate.
Academic Affairs Revised April 1993
Reenacted with slight amendment by Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-18 approved by the Faculty Senate March 13, 2013 and by the President April 11, 2013, Posted for 15 day review on April 11, 2013 Significantly revised by Faculty Senate Bill 16-A-14, Reviewed by President 11/15/16, Posted for 15 Day Review 12/5/16