A-Z Index  |  MCG Home  |  Site Search 

Conduct of Research Policy

Source: Medical College of Georgia Faculty Patent Policy Adopted 11/86, revised 5/00

It is the policy of the Medical College of Georgia to maintain the highest ethical standards and integrity in the conduct of research and in the publication of research results carried out by its faculty, students and staff.

In the event of an alleged instance of research misconduct, there will be a prompt and thorough investigation utilizing existing MCG procedures including appropriate due process (See MCG Faculty Manual, "Rules and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct").

Sanctions invoked against individuals found guilty of research misconduct may range from an informal reprimand to dismissal, depending on the severity of the offense. If such misconduct involves the integrity of publications, the appropriate editorial body will be notified. If extramural agencies are involved in the research, they will be notified as appropriate.

Guidelines for Authorship

Faculty should be free to publish the results of their research and scholarly work.   The Medical College of Georgia suggests faculty, staff and students adhere to the following guidelines when determining authorship to scholarly activities (i.e., manuscripts grants, presentations, electronic communication, etc.).

1. The issue of authorship should be discussed early in the collaborative relationship and should be reviewed periodically to take into account new developments.
2. Standards for authorship vary between disciplines and between journals.  Faculty are expected to conform to the policies stated in each journal's instructions to authors.   In the absence of more specific standards, faculty should follow the "Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals," established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.  An excerpt from these guidelines, updated May 2000, reads as follows:
   
   "All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.  Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.  One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article.
   
   Authorship credit should be based only on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published.  Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met.   Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.
   
   The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors.   Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed."
   
3. Each author should be given the opportunity to see the creative work in an essentially completed form and should give consent to co-authorship.
4. Graduate students, fellows, and other trainees should be co-authors on scholarly publications resulting from their work, providing they meet the criteria listed above.
5. In the case of grant applications with multiple individuals, authors should have the right to review the final proposal and should receive a copy of the final proposal.   Consultants should also be given the opportunity to review their responsibilities in the applications.

Original document created by the Biomedical Research Council.  Revised 01/08/01
Approved by the Academic Council 02/15/01

Rules and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
Source:  Policies and Procedures of the MCG General Faculty Assembly, Approved April 19, 1990;  Revised March 2000, Approved May 18, 2000.

Section 1. Purpose

The purpose of these procedures is to assure the integrity of research conducted on behalf of the Medical College of Georgia by its faculty, technical staff, residents, fellows, students, trainees, and individuals employed on a contractual basis by providing a process for close scrutiny of alleged breaches of that integrity and for full protection of the rights of any person so accused, as well as any person who makes such accusations in good faith.

Section 2. Definitions and Procedural Guarantees

1. Definition of Misconduct
   Misconduct in research is defined to include the following acts:

1. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts. Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.
2. Violation of the Medical College of Georgia Policy on the Conduct of Research. This includes the failure to obtain proper review and approval by the responsible university committees for research involving human subjects (i.e., Human Assurance Committee), animal subjects (i.e., Committee on Animal Use in Research and Education), radioactive materials (i.e., Radiation Safety Committee), chemical hazards (i.e., Institutional Chemical Committee), or biohazards (i.e., Institutional Biosafety Committee); and the failure to follow rules and guidelines established by these committees.
3. Condoning of fraud in research or violations of university research policy. This includes failure on the part of a member of the university to notify university authorities if it becomes obvious that misconduct in research has occurred, and failure to cooperate in an investigation under these procedures.

2. Findings of Research Misconduct
   A finding of research misconduct requires that the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
   
3. Procedural Guarantees

1. Each person shall be free from any restraint, interference, coercion or reprisal on the part of associates or supervisors in initiating any good-faith charge or appeal, in accompanying or advising the person(s) making such a charge or appeal, in appearing as a witness, or in seeking information pursuant to the procedures described in this document. The above principle will apply with equal force after a charge has been adjudicated. Should a violation of this principle be brought to the attention of either the Executive Committee of the Academic Council or the Vice President for Research, the committee or the Vice President for Research shall bring the facts to the attention of the President of the Medical College of Georgia and the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee and such conduct may result in disciplinary action.
2. The investigation of any charges of research misconduct and resulting written reports are considered confidential information, subject to the requirements of Georgia law regarding open records. MCG employees who make, receive, or learn of an allegation of research misconduct will protect, to the maximum extent possible, the confidentiality of information regarding the complainant, respondent, and other affected individuals. Information concerning the allegations and investigation should only be shared with involved parties when necessary to obtain relevant information or counsel.

Section 3. Faculty Research Ethics Committee

1. Purpose
   The Faculty Research Ethics Committee will be responsible for carrying out a full investigation of charges of research misconduct as determined to be warranted by the dean (or Vice President for Research). Section 6 describes the investigation process.
2. Appointment
   The Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall be appointed by the Executive Committee of the Academic Council, subject to the approval of the Council, from the corps of instruction of the university, excluding department chairs and associate deans. All appointees shall be selected for their expertise and good character.
3. Composition and Term
   The Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall consist of 12 members. The term of service shall be three years (staggered) with unlimited eligibility for reappointment. The committee shall annually elect its own chair.

Section 4. Procedures for Investigating Claims of Misconduct in Research

1. Submission of an Allegation
   Any individual who believes that he or she has knowledge of misconduct in research at MCG shall have the option of submitting a written allegation to the appropriate department chair or to the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee or the Vice President for Research. If there is a question as to how an allegation should be filed, the individual should contact the Vice President for Research or the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee. When a written allegation is made, it will immediately be reported to the dean in the school where the alleged misconduct occurred. A dean who has been notified of a charge of misconduct shall inform the Vice President for Research and the appropriate department chair if the chair has not been previously notified.
2. Outline of Procedures

• Written allegation made; dean (or Vice President for Research) notified.
• Preliminary assessment made by dean (or Vice President for Research) (5 days).
• Inquiry phase will be conducted by two faculty members; this phase will not last longer than 60 days from time of receipt of written allegation by dean (or Vice President for Research).
• If investigation is required, this must be completed within 90 days after its initiation.
• Investigation committee recommends action to President of the Medical College of Georgia.

Section 5. Inquiry

1. Preliminary Assessment of the Allegation
   Upon receipt of any written charge of research misconduct in his or her school or college, a dean shall conduct a preliminary assessment sufficient in detail to determine if there is sufficient factual evidence to warrant the appointment of a committee to conduct an inquiry into the charges. The preliminary assessment shall take no longer than 5 days. If the claims of misconduct include the primary dean, or research in which that dean has participated, those claims shall be reported immediately by the department chair to the Vice President for Research, who shall perform the preliminary assessment and conduct an inquiry in lieu of the dean.
2. Inquiry

1. If, on the basis of the preliminary assessment, it is decided that a more extensive inquiry is necessary, the dean (or Vice President for Research) will select two faculty members, other than those serving on the Faculty Research Ethics Committee, to serve as an inquiry committee. The faculty selected will have necessary and appropriate expertise and will have no real or apparent conflicts of interest in the inquiry case. The dean (or Vice President for Research) may appoint individuals who are not MCG faculty to the inquiry committee, if necessary, to obtain the appropriate level of expertise.
2. The university Chief Legal Officer will provide advice and counsel to the dean (or Vice President for Research) throughout the proceedings.
3. If at any time the dean (or Vice President for Research) determines that there are immediate health hazards involved, or there is a need to protect funds or equipment or individuals affected by the inquiry, or if the alleged incident is likely to be publicly reported, the appropriate agencies, including the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), Public Health Services (PHS), will be immediately notified. If reasonable indication of possible criminal violation is found, appropriate agencies, including ORI, PHS, must be notified within 24 hours. If at any time the dean (or Vice President for Research) considers it necessary to secure the records of research under investigation, steps will be taken to secure such records. Appropriate administrative actions will be taken to protect federal or other funds, and to ensure that the purposes of the federal and other financial assistance are being carried out.
4. The inquiry, including the preliminary assessment of the charges by the dean (or Vice President for Research), shall take no longer than 60 days from the receipt of the written allegation.

3. Procedures to be followed by the Inquiry Committee
   The charge to this committee is to recommend whether or not the evidence presented warrants a full investigation.

1. Interview with the Complainant
   During initial discussions with the complainant, the inquiry committee will specify the allegations regarding scientific misconduct, identify the key issues on which the allegations are based, and identify key witnesses who can provide information about events and behaviors at issue.
2. Interview with the Respondent
   The specific allegations of research misconduct will be presented to the respondent, along with the committee’s understanding of the key issues to be addressed. The respondent will be given an opportunity to reply, both then (if desired) and later, to present information requested or proffered. The inquiry committee and the respondent may request or suggest interviews with other parties who can provide information that would clarify issues.
3. Reply by the Parties
   Both parties will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide documentation and present witnesses.
4. Review of Documents
   The inquiry committee will review all relevant documents.
5. The inquiry committee shall determine whether the alleged misconduct involves research or research training, applications for support of research training, or related activities supported by PHS funds.
6. Conclusions of Inquiry Committee
   Based on results of 1-5, the inquiry committee may find the allegations do not warrant an investigation, or decide that the allegations be expanded or the allegations deserve a formal investigation. In addition, they may choose to revise the initial allegations, including the addition of new allegations for investigation.

4. Report of Inquiry Committee

1. A written report will be prepared by the inquiry committee and submitted to the dean (or Vice President for Research). At the same time, a copy of the report will be provided to the complainant and respondent. The complainant and respondent will have 5 days from receipt of the written report to submit any written comments to the dean (or Vice President for Research). Any comments will become part of the record.
2. To the extent allowed under applicable law, including Georgia’s Open Record Act, the report shall be treated as confidential and all reasonable efforts will be employed by the institution, the respondent, and the complainant to protect this confidentiality (see Section 2C, Procedural Guarantees, paragraph 2).
3. The written report of the inquiry committee shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Summary of all witnesses interviewed;
2. Summary of all evidence considered, including copies of relevant documents;
3. Statement of whether or not federal funding supported any of the research in question;
4. A detailed, reasoned analysis linking evidence to findings of fact and recommendations; and
5. A recommendation to the dean (or Vice President for Research) of whether formal investigation is warranted or not.

4. Report of Dean (or Vice President for Research)
   Following receipt of comments from the complainant and respondent, the dean (or Vice President for Research) will review the report of the inquiry committee along with the complainant’s and respondent’s responses and make a determination as to whether a full investigation is or is not warranted. The report of the dean (or Vice President for Research) will document that the inquiry report was provided to the complainant and respondent, and that their comments were considered. The report of the dean must be submitted to the Vice President for Research and the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee within 60 days of receipt of written allegations, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry phase takes longer than 60 days to complete, documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60 day period will be provided.
5. If the dean (or Vice President for Research) concludes that there are no substantive grounds for the allegation, the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee and the Vice President for Research shall certify to the President that an adequate inquiry has been conducted. Alternately, the Vice President for Research and the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee may recommend that the matter proceed to full investigation. If the inquiry determines that an investigation is not warranted, detailed documentation (records of the inquiry) will be maintained for at least three years in the Office of the Vice President for Research. Such records will be provided to authorized personnel, including ORI, PHS, upon request.
6. If the dean (or Vice President for Research) concludes that there are grounds for any of the allegations, the Vice President for Research shall inform the President and direct the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee to convene the committee to appoint an ad hoc investigation committee. When a decision to initiate an investigation is made, sponsors will be notified as legally required. Specifically, initiation of investigations regarding U.S. Public Health Service-supported research will be reported to the ORI, PHS. If federal funding is involved, it will be the responsibility of the Vice President for Research to make a written report to the director of ORI on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification shall include the name of the person against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegations, and the grant numbers involved.
7. If for any reason an inquiry is terminated without completing all relevant requirements of sponsoring agencies, specifically those required by 42CFR, part 50, Subpart A, Section 50.103(d), a report of planned termination, including a description of reason(s) for such termination, shall be made to the appropriate sponsoring agency, including ORI, PHS.

Section 6. The Investigation

1. Investigation Committee
   It shall be the responsibility of the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee to appoint five of its members as an ad hoc investigation committee (one member appointed as chair) that shall conduct a thorough investigation of all claims of misconduct assigned to it and make a written report of its findings to the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee, the complainant, and the respondent. Only those with appropriate expertise and who do not have a conflict of interest that would affect the investigation shall serve on the ad hoc committee. The chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee or the chair of the ad hoc investigation committee may add voting experts to the committee to provide adequate specialized expertise. The university Chief Legal Officer will provide advice and counsel throughout all proceedings conducted by the committee. After receiving the report of the ad hoc investigation committee and any responses from the complainant and respondent, the Faculty Research Ethics Committee will either accept the report, revise the report, or extend the investigation. The committee will prepare a final report that will be sent to the Vice President for Research, the complainant, and the respondent and to the President of the Medical College of Georgia for his final decision.
2. Investigation Procedures
   The initiation of the investigation begins with the first meeting of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee to review the allegations. The ad hoc investigation committee shall establish its own procedures as may be necessary for a thorough inquiry into all claims and evidence. These procedures shall, however, provide for at least the following:

1. The purpose of the investigation shall be to further explore the allegations and to determine whether misconduct has been committed. If the committee finds that misconduct has been committed, it is the responsibility of the committee to report its findings and recommendations for appropriate disciplinary action to the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee.
2. Within 3 days of the appointment of the ad hoc committee, notice shall be served by hand delivery or registered mail to the individual(s) against whom the allegation has been made, and the alleged basis for them. Such notification shall include a description of the specific allegations; a copy of the report of the Dean’s inquiry; sources of funding for the research; definition of research misconduct; procedures to be followed during the investigation, including the opportunity to be interviewed, seek the assistance of counsel, challenge the committee based on conflicts of interest, and comment on the report; and a copy of this document. In addition, the respondent should be notified of ORI oversight of the investigation, if any.
3. A thorough investigation of all allegations of misconduct and all responses to those allegations shall begin no later than 30 days after submission of the written report of the inquiry and be completed no more than 90 days after the initiation of the investigation by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee (e.g. the first meeting of the committee).

1. The investigation will be conducted in two phases; first, an independent investigation by members of the subcommittee, and second, a formal hearing.
2. The subcommittee members will be divided into two groups; one will conduct the independent investigation and the second will conduct the hearing and make the decision as to whether research misconduct has occurred.
3. The subcommittee members responsible for conducting the investigation will not participate in the decision of the adjudication subcommittee.
4. All parties involved in the investigation may be accompanied by a colleague and/or counsel of their choice. The role of these individuals will be advisory, but not participatory.
5. The committee shall provide at a formal hearing an opportunity for the complainant to present the evidence against the respondent, for the respondent to address fully all allegations, and for others determined necessary to present evidence bearing on the case.
6. The formal hearing shall be audiotaped.
7. An oath of affirmation shall be administered to all witnesses by any person authorized by law to administer oaths in the state of Georgia.
8. The investigation committee may grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made.
9. Both parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence.
10. Both parties will be afforded the opportunity to question all witnesses testifying at the hearing. If a witness cannot or will not appear but the committee determines that the interests of justice require the admission of said witness’ statement, the committee will identify the witness, disclose the statement, and if possible, provide for interrogatories.
11. The investigation committee will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available. All questions relating to admissibility of evidence or other legal matters shall be decided by the chair or presiding officer of the investigation committee with support of the university Chief Legal Officer.
12. For the committee to determine that the evidence submitted supports the finding of research misconduct, the allegations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, the committee must find it more likely than not that the misconduct occurred.
13. In the course of the investigation, the committee may broaden the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegations.
14. If, in the course of the investigation or hearing, evidence is discovered that would implicate parties other than the respondent in new charges of research misconduct, those charges will be submitted to the appropriate dean (or Vice President for Research) for the purpose of initiating a new inquiry into these allegations, with the subcommittee serving as complainant. If the responsible official finds that a full investigation is warranted, a new ad hoc subcommittee will be formed, not to include any members of the subcommittee submitting the allegations.

4. A full written report of findings and recommendations shall be made to the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee within 5 days of completion of the ad hoc committee’s investigation. Each member of the investigation committee shall sign the report or submit a signed dissenting report.
5. All records of the ad hoc committee’s activities and findings shall be conveyed to the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee. Those records shall be maintained in accordance with Section 7 of these procedures.

3. Investigation Committee Recommendations for Administrative Action
   Upon completion of its deliberations, the investigation committee shall recommend such administrative action as it deems just and appropriate and in accordance with the statutes and bylaws of the faculty of the Medical College of Georgia. While they are not intended to include all options hereby authorized, the following suggestions of the Association of American Medical Colleges (Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Misconduct in Research, March 1989) shall help to inform the committee in making its recommendations for such actions:

1. If the alleged misconduct is substantiated by a thorough investigation, the following actions should be considered:

1. The sponsoring agency should be notified by the Vice President for Research of the findings of the investigation and appropriate restitution should be made.
2. All pending abstracts and papers emanating from the fraudulent research should be withdrawn and editors of journals in which previous related abstracts and papers appeared should be notified by the Vice President for Research.
3. Institutions and sponsoring agencies with which the individual has been affiliated should be notified by the Vice President for Research if there is reason to believe that the validity of previous related research might be questionable.
4. Appropriate disciplinary action shall be recommended to the President of the Medical College of Georgia. This recommended action should be consistent and commensurate with the nature of the proven acts of misconduct. Examples include: removal from a particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, rank reduction, or termination of employment. Serious disciplinary action against faculty, such as suspension, salary reduction, rank reduction, or termination of employment, will require application of the Regent’s policy on dismissal of tenured faculty or non-tenured faculty during the contract year (see MCG Statutes and the MCG Faculty Grievance Procedure).
5. Institutional administrators should consider, in consultation with legal counsel, release of information about the incident to the public press, particularly when public funds were used in supporting the fraudulent research.
6. If the alleged misconduct is not substantiated by a thorough investigation, formal efforts should be undertaken to restore fully the reputation of the respondent. In addition, appropriate action should be taken against any parties whose involvement in leveling unfounded allegations was demonstrated to have been malicious or intentionally dishonest.
7. If for any reason, an investigation is terminated without completing all relevant requirements of sponsoring agencies, specifically those required by 42CFR, Part 50, Subpart A, Section 50.103(d), a report of planned termination, including a description of reason(s) for such termination, shall be made to appropriate sponsoring agency, including ORI, PHS.

2. When the investigation is complete, the chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall have the following responsibilities:

1. The chair shall provide a copy of the ad hoc committee’s written report by hand delivery or registered mail to the complainant and the respondent. Within 10 days of receiving the committee’s report, these individuals shall have the opportunity to provide written responses to the report to the Faculty Research Ethics Committee;
2. The chair shall present the complete written report, including the findings and any recommendations for disciplinary action, to the full Faculty Research Ethics Committee.

3. The Faculty Research Ethics Committee has the following responsibilities:

1. The committee shall receive the report of the ad hoc investigation committee and any written responses from the complainant and respondent. It will accept the report, revise disciplinary action recommended by the investigation committee, or extend the investigation. In any event, the final report will be prepared within 90 days of initiation of an investigation.
2. The final report will be sent to the President of the Medical College of Georgia for review and a final decision. Copies of the report shall be sent at the same time to the Vice President for Research, the primary dean, the complainant, and the respondent. The President will make every effort to come to a final decision within 7 days of receiving the final report. Each member of the Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall sign the final report or submit a signed dissenting report. The final report submitted by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee for transmission by the Vice President for Research to appropriate sponsoring agencies, including ORI, PHS, will describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, how and from whom information was obtained relevant to the investigation, the findings and the basis for the findings. The final report will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct, as well as a description of any sanctions taken by the institution.
3. The contents of any reports distributed under this section shall be kept in strictest confidence except that the Vice President for Research or the President of the Medical College of Georgia shall provide such notice as the contractual and equitable obligation of the university may require. A report from the Medical College of Georgia will be submitted by the Vice President for Research. If for any reason a final decision by the President cannot be issued within 120 days of initiation of an investigation, a request for an extension will be submitted by the Vice President for Research to the sponsoring agency, including ORI, PHS. The extension request will include an explanation for the delay, an interim report on progress to date, an outline of what remains to be done, and an estimated date of completion.

4. Records and Reports

1. All records and reports of the ad hoc committee and the Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall be considered confidential, subject to the requirements of Georgia law regarding open records.
2. All records received by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee or generated by its own inquiry shall be maintained by the chair of the committee using the facilities of the office of the Vice President for Research pending their proper disposition at the end of the investigation according to Section 7 below.
3. The Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall report to the Executive Committee of the Academic Council annually concerning its investigations of misconduct in research. This report shall include a statement of the number of cases of misconduct actually investigated by the investigation committee appointed by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee and their disposition, but will not disclose the confidential records in its possession.

Section 7. Disposition of Investigation-Related Materials

The President of the Medical College of Georgia shall retain all materials collected during an investigation and its final reports for at least a period of 7 years after which time they may be destroyed. These materials shall be kept in confidence in the Office of the Vice President for Research (storage) and are to be made available upon request to ORI, PHS, or other sponsoring agencies.

Section 8. Rights of Appeal

While due consideration of all recommendations made by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee shall be given, the final decision on any allegation of misconduct in research is the responsibility of the President of the Medical College of Georgia. Final decisions of the President may be appealed to the Board of Regents (The Policy Manual, Board of Regents, Second Edition, section 201.08).

Section 9. 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 these 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 evidence.

Section 10. Dissemination of These Procedures

The definition of misconduct and the availability of these policies and procedures shall be widely disseminated at least semi-annually to all institutional personnel, as well as to those individuals contracted by the institution to conduct research.

Section 11. Review and Revision of These Procedures

Subsequent to the completion of an investigation, faculty practices and institutional policies and procedures for promoting ethical conduct of research and investigating allegations of misconduct shall be scrutinized and modified by the Academic Council in light of the experience gained.

This document shall provide ready access to a process for assuring the integrity of research at the Medical College of Georgia. It shall be reviewed and revised as appropriate. This review and revision shall be done by the Rules Committee of the Executive Committee of the Academic Council, subject to approval by the Academic Council.

Medical College of Georgia Policy on the Ownership and Retention of Scholarly/Research Records
The ownership and responsibility for retaining scholarly/research records generated by Medical College of Georgia faculty, staff and students is an issue of increasing importance. Georgia state law contains specific requirements for state agencies, such as MCG, to maintain and produce records generated by its personnel (see, e.g., O.C.G.A. 50-18-70 et seq.). Additionally, federal laws and regulations governing federally funded research mandate awardee institutions to retain original records and to provide them upon request (see, 42 C.F.R. sec. 50.102 and 45 C.F.R. Part 74, Subpart D). This policy on ownership and retention of records has been adopted in order to provide guidance for MCG faculty, postgraduate trainees, students, and employees concerning the ownership and retention of scholarly/research records generated by them during the course of their employment or enrollment.

1. This policy shall apply to all MCG faculty, postgraduate trainees, staff and students.
2. The term "scholarly/research record" as used in this policy, shall mean any and all documents, slides, photographs, specimens, data, computer based information, videotapes, or any other information, whether recorded in a written, electronic or other format, and which is produced in the creation, testing or evaluation of any product or process and which is produced within the scope of an individual's employment or enrollment at the Medical College of Georgia. The term "scholarly/research record" shall include any intellectual property rights embodied in such records, subject to the provisions of the Medical College of Georgia Intellectual Property Policy.
3. All scholarly/research records generated or produced by an MCG faculty member, student or employee during the course of his/her employment or enrollment shall be the property of Medical College of Georgia.
4. Responsibility for proper collection and a system for retention of scholarly/research records resides with the faculty member (principal investigator or author). Faculty members are responsible for records created and maintained by trainees, students, or staff whom they mentor/supervise. Departmental chairpersons share responsibility for assuring proper maintenance and storage of scholarly/research records. Any person creating or maintaining a scholarly/research record shall be responsible for complying with any applicable laws, rules or regulations and with generally accepted standards of scholarly/research conduct. Compliance with specific record creation and retention requirements mandated by contract, grant, statute or regulation is expected. The obligation to maintain records subject to this policy shall remain in effect for a period of four years from the date of their creation, unless otherwise specifically required (for example by a study sponsor) or agreed to by MCG.
5. Original scholarly/research records shall remain upon the premises of the Medical College of Georgia unless otherwise authorized by MCG. In the event an individual ceases to be either employed or enrolled at the Medical College of Georgia, copies of any and all research records created by that employee or student will be made available upon request. Refer to Administration Policies and Procedures of the Medical College of Georgia (Policy number 1.2.12; Records Management) for additional information.

© Medical College of Georgia
All rights reserved.

September 21, 2004