» Office of Research Policies and Guidance

Internal Research Policies


Toggle Section

+ - Animal Care and Use Policy

Defines the term animal and describes the structure of the animal care and use program (ACUP) at Chapman University.

POLICY STATEMENT

Chapman University is committed to the highest ethical standards of animal care and use. Each Chapman investigator, student or instructor wishing to use animals on or off campus must conduct all animal work in accordance with the standards, laws, regulations, and policies governing the care and use of animals. The university maintains an animal care and use program based upon the principles of USDA’s Animal Welfare Regulations, the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and other taxon-specific guidelines.

REASON FOR THE POLICY

This policy defines the term animal and describes the structure of the animal care and use program (ACUP) at Chapman University. Further, this policy establishes the authority and responsibilities of Principal Investigators (PI), the Institutional Official (IO), the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), the Attending Veterinarian (AV), and other stakeholders including Environmental Health and Safety, Office of Sponsored Projects Services, the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) and Chief Compliance Officer.

POLICY

Chapman University is committed to the ideals of integrity and respect for the environment in all areas of research, teaching, and service (Chapman University Code of Ethics). The ACUP at Chapman applies to all Chapman research and teaching activities involving live vertebrate animals. The program conforms to: 1) the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 2011); 2) regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture issued by the USDA implementing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA); 3) the Public Health Service’s Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and 4) California’s Department of Public Health (CDPH).

Chapman University has filed an Animal Welfare Assurance further defining its commitment to the ethical use of live vertebrate animals in activities supported by the Public Health Service and/or the National Science Foundation. Oversight of the Chapman ACUP rests primarily with the IO, the IACUC and the AV. Secondarily, the ACUP also requires the participation and commitment of individual researchers, animal care personnel, the Office of Research staff, and the Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) personnel. This policy describes the authority and responsibilities of these individuals in the ethical care and use of animals.

The term “animal,” for the purposes of the animal care program at Chapman University, includes all independent live vertebrate members of the Phylum Chordata, Class Vertebrata (all vertebrates) used in research, education, or testing. The determination of when an embryonic animal is considered an independent entity varies by the class of the animal. Any use of an animal in research, education or testing at Chapman University requires IACUC review and approval. The use of animal by-products, such as tissues or antibodies, is not included in IACUC oversight. Obtaining them may be subject to import controls and inter-institutional assurances, however.

The Office of Research and the IACUC recognize the collaborations which researchers and principal investigators enter. The responsibilities of PIs include:

  • Preparing and submitting IACUC protocols to describe the proposed usage of animals, verifying approval prior to conducting any research or teaching activity, and for adhering to the content within approved protocols
  • Requesting approval from the IACUC for changes to approved studies through a protocol amendment, and implementing those changes only after receipt of written (electronic) approval from the IACUC
  • Resubmitting each protocol for de novo IACUC review at least once every three years if animal work is continuing and ensuring that IACUC approval for the renewal is granted before the initial approval has expired, or suspending animal work until written (electronic) approval of the renewal has been obtained
  • Reporting, at least annually, the status of each protocol to assure that ongoing activities are conducted in accordance with an approved protocol
  • Following all applicable facility standards, guidelines, and procedures in the conduct of the animal work
  • Promptly notifying the IACUC of any unexpected results that affect the welfare of the animals under their animal protocol by reporting any unanticipated pain or distress, morbidity, or mortality
  • Ensuring that personnel working on their protocols are appropriately trained and qualified for the procedures they are performing (personnel include PIs, research staff, students, and volunteers)
  • Informing personnel of the risks and hazards associated with working with animals in research and teaching environments, which includes consulting with EH&S
  • Maintaining clinical (veterinary) health and protocol procedural records.

The President of Chapman University has delegated the responsibilities and authority of ACUP to the Vice President for Research (VPR) in the capacity of IO. The IO has the authority and responsibility to:

  • Commit Chapman University so as to meet the requirements of the AWAR and PHS Policy
  • Appoint members of the IACUC
  • Ensure that the program goals of quality animal care and use are in alignment with the University’s mission
  • Monitor University compliance with all applicable animal welfare laws, regulations, and policies
  • Ensure that the animal facilities are maintained at the minimum necessary to assure animal welfare, provide research support resources necessary to advance research and teaching, allow for support staff efficiencies, minimize costs to researchers and campus, and maintain standards of accreditation (e.g., AAALAC)
  • Sign forms, reports, and letters on behalf of the University and interact with the IACUC in overseeing the ACUP
  • On receipt of inspection reports, semiannual reports, incident reports, and recommendations from the IACUC, then determine, in consultation with the IACUC, whether deficiencies are significant or minor and whether appropriate corrective actions need to be taken and have been identified and implemented.
  • Delegate various administrative and training tasks to Office of Research staff in support of the ACUP.

The IACUC’s responsibilities include:

  • Reviewing and approving, requiring modifications (to secure approval), or withholding approval of IACUC protocols and amendments
  • Reviewing and approving, requiring changes to or withholding approval for the number of animals used and for deviations from the Guide
  • Monitoring animal activities through continuing protocol review, laboratory and facility inspections, and observation of procedures and animals
  • Investigating reported animal care and use concerns and preparing a report to OLAW, submitted through the IO, of all reportable incidents
  • Reviewing, preparing, and signing semi-annual reports to the IO related to Chapman’s ACUP and facilities
  • Through the IO, submitting an annual report to Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) at the NIH, the USDA, other regulatory agencies, and AAALAC as appropriate
  • Developing ACUP procedures and guidelines based on federal, state, and university policies
  • Working with the EH&S and IBC to maintain compliance with biosafety practices, controlled substances, chemical hazards, etc.
  • Evaluating reports of potential violations to existing animal care and use regulations or this policy, and investigating and reporting findings to the full membership of the IACUC and the IO
  • Making recommendations to the IO regarding any aspect of Chapman’s animal program, facilities, training, or IACUC membership
  • Suspending an activity involving animals if it does not comply with the AWAR, the Guide, PHS Policy, or Chapman's PHS Animal Welfare Assurance.

The Attending Veterinarian (AV) is delegated authority for activities involving animals both on the Chapman University campuses and “off-site” (e.g., wildlife studies) as follows.

  • The AV is responsible for the campus veterinary care program and has the authority to immediately suspend an activity that causes significant animal welfare or health concerns. The AV will immediately notify the IACUC of any such situation.
  • The Animal Welfare Act regulations hold the AV directly responsible for the oversight of the programs and processes for animal disease control and prevention, euthanasia, the appropriate use of pain relieving drugs, surgery, and other aspects of veterinary care.
  • The AV serves as a voting member of the IACUC.

Various administrative units (Office of Research, EH&S, Compliance Office) support the ACUP. This include staff for administering the IACUC, managing the animal facilities, implementing an occupational health program, and handling reports of concerns for animal welfare.

  • The IACUC administrator provides support to the IACUC and serves as technical advisor to the Committee.
  • The IACUC administrator and animal facilities staff implement the IACUC and other training programs to ensure campus compliance with IACUC policies and animal welfare.
  • The Office of Research collaborates with EH&S to implement an appropriate occupational health program that addresses the use of animals in teaching, research, and testing.
  • The Chief Compliance Officer collaborates with the Office of Research to handle anonymous reports of animal welfare concerns.
  • Facilities are either managed by the Office of Research and appropriate staff, or by individual investigators as part of their own laboratory/facilities.

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office: Office of Research
Contact information for questions about this policy: Michael Briggs, Director of Research Integrity

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

https://www.chapman.edu/research/policies-and-guidance/index.aspx

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

Senior Staff member submitting the policy: Thomas Piechota, Vice President for Research Date approved: 10/9/18
[Signed]
Daniele C. Struppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: October 9, 2018

RELATED MATERIALS

National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12910.

Animal Welfare Assurance

Public Health Service’s Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

USDA Animal Welfare Regulations

+ - Human Subjects Protection Policy

Sets forth the structure of the Human Research Protection Program at Chapman University and describes the authority and responsibilities of individual researchers, the IO and the IRB in implementing the program.

POLICY STATEMENT

Chapman University maintains a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) based upon the principles outlined in the Belmont Report, the Declaration of Helsinki (as amended in 1989), and the Nuremburg Code. The program is implemented in accordance with the federal regulations, FDA regulations, and California laws relating to human subjects in research.

REASON FOR THE POLICY

This policy sets forth the structure of the Human Research Protection Program at Chapman University and describes the authority and responsibilities of individual researchers, the Institutional Official (IO) and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in implementing the program.

POLICY

Through its Code of Ethics, Chapman University established respect for persons as the ideal and fundamental ethical basis in teaching, research and service. The University operates its human research protection program under a Federal wide Assurance (FWA) with the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP). The FWA represents a fundamental commitment to the protection of human participants and applies to all Chapman University research involving human participants, regardless of the location of the research or its sources of funding, be they governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry, or University funds. In addition, the FWA applies to all research conducted at Chapman University or using Chapman resources regardless of who is conducting the research.

The mission of the HRPP is to:

  • Safeguard and promote the health and welfare of human research subjects by ensuring that their rights, safety, and well-being are protected; 
  • Provide guidance and support to the research community in the conduct of research with human subjects; 
  • Assist the research community in ensuring compliance with relevant regulations;
  • Educate and train students, faculty, and staff who conduct research about the ethical principles and federal regulations guiding research with human subjects.
  • To provide efficient and high quality review of human research projects; and
  • To facilitate excellence in human subjects research.

Researcher Responsibilities

Researchers have the primary responsibility for the protection of research participants on a given project, including:

  • Consulting with Office of Research staff if unsure whether a study meets the definition of research with human subject
  • Submitting applications for review and approval prior to initiating research;
  • Ensuring that research with human subjects is either deemed exempt or conducted according to an IRB-approved protocol;
  • Submitting modification requests as needed and waiting to receive written approval before implementing changes;
  • Submitting requests for continuing review in accordance with the IRB established timeframe;
  • Reporting unanticipated risks, physical or psychological harm, or other problems to the IRB immediately upon becoming aware of them;
  • Reporting to the IRB when the research project is completed;
  • Retaining research materials for at least three years after the completion of the research; and
  • Complying with data retention requirements of funding agencies, as applicable. 

In cases of disagreement, the IRB has the final authority to determine what constitutes research and the use of human participants.

Institutional Offical Responsibilities

The Vice President for Research is the Institutional Official (IO) with overall responsibility for the HRPP. The IO is authorized to act for the institution and, on behalf of the institution, obligates the institution to the Terms of the Assurance. The responsibilities of the IO include:

  • Ensuring that the HRPP functions effectively and that the institution provides the resources and support necessary to comply with all requirements applicable to research involving human subjects;
  • Ensuring that the IRB functions independently by, among other mechanisms, being directly accessible to the IRB Chair(s) and members if they experience undue influence or if they have concerns about the function of the IRB; 
  • Ensuring the IRB members are appropriately knowledgeable to review research in accordance with ethical standards and applicable regulations; 
  • Oversight of the development and implementation of an educational plan for IRB members, staff, and investigators; 
  • Serving as the signatory authority related to human subject protections and ensuring compliance with the terms of the FWA to the Office of Human Research Protections; 
  • Representing Chapman University in communications with the federal OHRP;
  • Determining whether protocols with human subjects meet the criteria for exempt determination; and
  • As appropriate, delegating responsibilities to the Office of Research staff or IRB member(s).

Institutional Review Board Responsibilities

Chapman University maintains an IRB to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities.

The responsibilities of the IRB include:

  • To approve, require modifications to secure approval, or disapprove all non-exempt research activities involving human subjects overseen and conducted under the auspices of the institution regardless of location of the research activities; 
  • To review protocols in accordance with the ethical principles described in the Belmont Report, federal regulations, and institutional policy; 
  • To require that informed consent be obtained and documented in accordance with regulatory requirements unless the criteria for the waiver or alteration of such requirements has been satisfied and approved by the IRB.
  • To conduct continuing review of research at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk of the research and as determined by federal regulations
  • To suspend or terminate approval of research not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects.
  • To conduct investigations of alleged or suspected non-compliance and submit a report to the IO on the outcome and recommendations of the investigations.
  • To review applications in a timely manner, barring any unforeseen problems.
  • To accurately document IRB decisions for exempt, expedited and full protocols and minutes of IRB meetings.
  • As necessary, to observe, or have a third party observe, the consent process and/or the conduct of research; and
  • Submission of an annual report to the IO

Various administrative units (Office of Research, Environmental Health and Safety, Compliance Office) support the HRPP. This includes staff for administering the IRB, as well as managing and handling reports of concerns for human subjects’ research.

  • The IRB administrator provides support to the IRB and serves as technical advisor to the IRB committee.
  • The IRB administrator implements the IRB training programs to ensure campus compliance with policies and human subject regulations.  
  • The Office of Research collaborates with Environmental Health & Safety to implement an appropriate occupational health program that addresses the participation of Non-Chapman human subject use in research. 
  • The Chief Compliance Officer collaborates with the Office of Research to handle anonymous reports of human subject concerns.  

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office: Office of Research

Contact information for questions about this policy: Michael Briggs, Director of Research Integrity

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

https://www.chapman.edu/research/policies-and-guidance/index.aspx

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

Senior Staff member submitting the policy: Tom Piechota, VP for Research Date approved: October 9, 2018
[Signed]
Daniele C. Struppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: 10/9/18

RELATED MATERIALS

Institutional Review Board. Management and Function: Second Edition.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections

+ - Copyrighted Works Policy

Provides policy guidance on the ownership, assignment and control of intellectual property rights in copyrightable works by members of the Chapman community.

BACKGROUND

This Copyright Policy governs the ownership and control of intellectual property rights in copyrightable works at Chapman University (the “University”). All faculty, academic staff, as well as non-employees who participate in teaching and/or research or scholarship projects at the University are bound by this policy (such persons are referred to as the “Author(s)”). They are also required to sign the Chapman University Patent and Copyright Agreement found on the Institutional Policies webpage. This policy applies, and those subject to this policy are deemed to assign their rights, to copyrightable works as required under this policy whether or not a Chapman University Patent and Copyright Agreement is signed and is on file.

For purposes of this policy only, the term “academic staff” refers to post-doctoral candidates, senior scientists, visiting researchers, administrators holding a concurrent tenured faculty rank and other staff that may be so designated from time to time. Other University staff are subject to a separate policy. This policy cannot address every situation that may arise in the development, enforcement and management of intellectual property rights. Rather, this policy is intended to serve as a set of guidelines for University Authors. This policy is established with the understanding that it may be supplemented by statements of policy, or other interpretive guidance, focused on particular circumstances, especially those arising out of new media or technology. Further, this policy itself may be amended over time to effect changes deemed to be in the best interest of the University community.

NOTE: The University’s policy governing patentable inventions, including patentable software, is contained on the Institutional Policies webpage.

GENERAL POLICY

Subject to the exceptions noted below and in keeping with longstanding academic tradition, ownership of copyright in textbooks, scholarly publications, art works, motion pictures, musical compositions literary works, or other pedagogical works regardless of the medium of expression, resides with the Author. Ownership of any trademarks associated with such works also resides with the Author except to the extent any such trademark incorporates or would otherwise infringe on a trademark owned or in use by the University.” The only exceptions to Author ownership of copyrightable works are as follows:

Commissioned Works

Where the Author is requested or commissioned by the University to create copyrightable material, the resulting work shall be owned by the University. All online courses are considered commissioned works.

Institutional Works

The University shall retain ownership of Institutional Works. Institutional Works include:
  • institutional/business records and documents, such as, for example, University planning documents, strategic reports, accreditation reports, ordinary business correspondence, forms, and templates, or
  • works that are the result of improvements or modifications to works owned by the University.

Use of University Funds or Resources

If the creator of a copyrightable work makes exceptional non-ordinary use of the services of University non-faculty employees or University resources to create the work, he or she shall disclose the work to the University Intellectual Property Committee and assign ownership to the University. Examples of ordinary use include use of desktop computers, University libraries and limited secretarial or administrative resources, as well as ordinary use of other types of University resources readily and regularly available to faculty or staff working in his or her specific program, college, department or school (“University Department”) which do not significantly impact its operation Questions about what constitutes ordinary use should be directed to the Dean and disputes may be resolved by University Intellectual Property Committee. A University Department may request the University Intellectual Property Committee to provide additional clarification of the provisions of this section as it relates to the specific circumstances of their Department. University Departments may also propose, for evaluation and approval by the Committee, supplemental guidance regarding the definition of resources that are “readily and regularly available resources” for their faculty and staff.

Works Otherwise Subject to Contractual Obligations

Ownership of works developed pursuant to or under contract, grant, sponsorship or other arrangement with a third party shall be subject to the terms and conditions of such contract, agreement or grant. If no such terms and conditions are stated, then the works shall be subject to the terms of this Policy.
   
This Policy shall not be interpreted to limit the University's ability to meet its obligations under any contract, grant, or other arrangement with third parties. Copyrightable works that are subject to sponsored research agreements or other contractual obligations of the University shall be owned by the University, so that the University may satisfy its contractual obligations regarding licensing or assignment of ownership under such agreements.

Syllabi and Courseware

In the interest of maintaining continuity of curriculum, the University retains all ownership rights in Syllabi and Courseware. Courseware means the embedded tools, technologies and content of digital teaching media, courses delivered by television, video, Internet or other media or technologies not yet developed, web publications and any other materials required for the delivery or teaching of a course. Courseware is not intended to include standard teaching materials unless embedded in syllabi or courseware.
    
If a faculty member leaves the University, he or she may continue to use at another academic or not-for-profit research institution for teaching, research and other noncommercial purposes, all Syllabi and Courseware he or she created at the University, except to the extent such use conflicts with the terms of applicable law, or the terms of an agreement with a third party. The University’s name shall not be used on such materials for any purpose other than the University’s copyright notice. The departing faculty member shall bear the cost of copying such materials.

License to University

The University shall receive a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty free license to perform, display, copy, modify and distribute works developed and owned by Authors during their term of employment with the University, for University’s academic and internal use without payment of royalties or other fees to the Author. The provisions of this section shall apply except to the extent otherwise required by law, such as, for example, the provisions of The California Art Preservation Act (California Civil Code Section 987), and except to the extent that the Author has informed the University in writing that such license is in conflict with contractual commitments with publishers or similar contractual arrangements.

Student Purchases

Faculty often create materials in which they hold commercial interest and which might be used in courses or programs which the faculty is teaching or administering for the University. It is the policy of the University that faculty may require students to purchase materials in which the faculty or staff member holds a commercial interest for courses taught or programs administered by that faculty member. In this situation, however, the faculty member shall not make direct sales to students.

Reconveyance of Copyright to Creator

When copyright is assigned to the University under this policy, the creator of the copyrighted material may make a request to the University Intellectual Property Committee that ownership be reconveyed back to the creator. Such a request can, at the discretion of the University Intellectual Property Committee, be granted if it does not: (i) violate any legal obligations of or to the University, (ii) limit appropriate University uses of the materials, (iii) create a real or potential conflict of interest for the creator, or (iv) otherwise conflict with University goals or principles. A request for reconveyance may be made by the creator at any time and the University Intellectual Property Committee shall respond not later than three months or its next regularly scheduled meeting, whichever is longer, and the timeframe is subject to extension by mutual agreement.  

Licensing by University

University ownership of any copyrightable work shall not constitute any promise, duty or undertaking on the part of the University with respect to the protection, enforcement or exploitation of such work.
   
Where the University receives royalties or income from copyrightable works it owns, the Author will receive thirty percent (30%) of the gross sum of any royalty or income paid in cash and received by the University after the University has recovered any costs and expenses associated with development, protection, licensing and enforcement of rights in the work.

Administration of Policy

The application and interpretation of this Policy not resolved by the Dean, and questions of ownership, licensing, royalty or other matters pertaining to works covered by this Policy shall be resolved by the Intellectual Property Committee. Decisions of this panel shall be final and non-grievable under other internal processes.
    
Waivers of the provisions of this policy may be granted by the Intellectual Property Committee, giving consideration among other things to University obligations to sponsors, University obligations under applicable law, whether the waiver would be in the best interest of technology transfer, whether the waiver would be in the best interest of the University and whether the waiver would result in a conflict of interest.

Use of the University Name in Copyright Notices

The following copyright notice should be placed on University-owned materials:
    
Copyright © [year] Chapman University. All Rights Reserved.
    
No other institutional or departmental name is to be used in the copyright notice, although the name and address of the department to which readers can direct inquiries may be listed below the copyright notice. The date in the notice should be the year in which the work is first published, i.e. distributed to the public or any sizable audience.
   
Additionally, works may be registered with the United States Copyright Office using its official forms. Forms may be obtained from http://www.copyright.gov/forms to which questions concerning copyright notices and registration also may be addressed.
    

Explanation of Terms

1. Copyrightable Works

Additionally, works may be registered with the United States Copyright Office using its official forms. Forms may be obtained from http://www.copyright.gov/forms to which questions concerning copyright notices and registration also may be addressed.
- Literary works such as books, pamphlets, brochures, journal articles, poems, manuals, memoranda, tests, computer programs, instructional material, databases, bibliographies
- Musical works including any accompanying lyrics
- Dramatic works, including any accompanying music
- Pantomimes and choreographic works (if fixed, as in notation or videotape)
- Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, including photographs, diagrams, sketches and integrated circuit masks
- Motion pictures, audio, video or other audiovisual recordings and other audiovisual works such as videotapes

2. Scope of Copyright Protection

Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, process, or concept, but only protects the work in which it may be embodied. For example, copyright protects a written description of a manufacturing process. However, copyright only prevents unauthorized copying of the written description; the ideas behind the process described are not protected by copyright. They could be protected by some other means, such as patent or trade secret.
   

Subject to the exceptions and limitations provided for in the copyright law, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, and display or perform the work publicly. Ownership of copyright is distinct from the ownership of any material object in which the work may be embodied. For example, purchase of a film on DVD grants ownership of the DVD medium but not ownership rights to the underlying content. The term of copyright in works created on or after January 1, 1978, is the life of the author plus seventy years. Copyright in works-for-hire is for ninety-five years from the date of first publication or one hundred twenty years from creation, whichever period first expires.

3. Intellectual Property Committee

The Intellectual Property Committee shall consist of the Chancellor or his or her designee, the Chief Operating Officer, or his or her designee, and a Faculty Senate Designee.

 

Approved by Board of Trustees on March 25, 2013

+ - Inventions and Patents Policy

Provides policy guidance related to the ownership, assignment and control of intellectual property in potentially patentable and patented inventions by members of the Chapman community.

A. BACKGROUND

This Policy governs the ownership and control of intellectual property rights in potentially patentable and patented inventions, including patentable software, at Chapman University (the “University”). A primary purpose of this Policy is to provide incentive for faculty and staff to apply their skills, knowledge and creative talent to research and to protect the University’s investment in that research.

All faculty, staff, student employees, as well as non-employees who participate in teaching and/or research or scholarship projects at the University are bound by this policy and they are referred to in this policy as “Inventor(s).” They are also required to sign the Chapman University Patent and Copyright Agreement found on the Institutional Policies webpage.

This policy applies, and those subject to this policy are deemed to assign their rights to inventions as required under this policy, whether or not a Chapman University Patent and Copyright Agreement is signed and is on file.

This policy shall apply to all inventions conceived or first reduced to practice on or after January 28, 2013.

NOTE: The University’s policy governing copyrightable works can be found on the Institutional Policies webpage.

B. GENERAL POLICY

  1. All potentially patentable inventions conceived or first reduced to practice in whole or in part by Inventors in the course of their University responsibilities or with more than incidental use of University resources, shall be disclosed on a timely basis to the University. Title to all such inventions is hereby assigned, and the Inventor agrees to assign title to the University, regardless of the source of funding, if any. The Inventor(s) shall cooperate with the University, at the University’s expense, to document, perfect and record such assignment.
  2. The University requires Inventors to use University’s invention disclosure form for disclosure of inventions and the form is available at the Institutional Policies webpage. Invention disclosures must be timely and complete.
  3. The University shall share royalties from inventions assigned to the University with the Inventor(s) as described below in Section C4.
  4. The Inventors, acting collectively where there is more than one, may petition the University to place their inventions in the public domain if they believe that would be in the best interest of technology transfer and if doing so is not in violation of the terms of any agreements related in any way to the invention or its development or in violation of applicable law. The determination of whether to agree to such request, and any applicable additional terms, will be made by the University Intellectual Property Committee.  
  5. The Inventor(s) may petition the University to assign ownership of the invention back to the Inventor(s), to the extent possible under the terms of any agreements that supported or related to the work and to the extent permitted by applicable law, under the following circumstances:
    1. No earlier than three (3) months after the date of the University’s receipt of the applicable invention disclosure, the Inventor(s) may so petition the University and the University may determine:  
      1. it has no interest in pursuing the claimed invention, in which case it will assign the invention to the Inventor(s) to the extent possible under the terms of any agreements that supported or related to the work and to the extent permitted by applicable law; or  
      2. it continues to have an interest in pursuing the claimed invention, in which case it will not assign the invention to the Inventors and Section B5(ii) shall apply; or  
      3. it needs more time to make a determination of whether it has an interest in pursuing the claimed invention and will respond within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed six (6) months, subject to extension as mutually agreed.
    2. If the University determines under B5(i)(b) that it has an interest in pursuing the claimed invention, and the University fails to derive income from an invention for a period of ten (10) years after the date of the applicable invention disclosure, the Inventor(s) may re-petition the University.  
    3. If at any time the University determines to abandon all pursuit of a claimed invention, the University will notify the Inventor(s) at the Inventor(s) last known address and the Inventor(s) may re-petition the University. At any time after the initial three (3) month period described in B5(i), but no more frequently than once in any twelve (12) month period, the Inventor(s) may request that the University confirm in writing that it has not abandoned all pursuit of the Inventor(s)’s claimed invention. 

The determination of whether to agree to such request, and any applicable additional terms, will be made by the University Intellectual Property Committee.

If the University does determine to assign the invention back to the Inventor(s), the University shall receive a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free license to the invention for academic and internal purposes. 

6. Waivers of the provisions of this policy may be granted by the University Intellectual Property Committee on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration among other things to University obligations to sponsors, University obligations under applicable law, whether the waiver would be in the best interest of technology transfer, whether the waiver would be in the best interest of the University and whether the waiver would result in a conflict of interest.

C. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

1. Invention Disclosures

An invention disclosure is a document which provides information about the inventor(s) of an invention, a description of what was invented, circumstances leading to the invention, and facts concerning subsequent activities. It helps the University determine if an invention is patentable and provides the technical information needed to draft a patent application.
  
Inventors must prepare and submit an invention disclosure for each potentially patentable invention conceived or first actually reduced to practice in whole or in part in the course of their University responsibilities or with more than incidental use of University resources (See C2 below). The invention disclosure must be submitted as soon as practicable after conception and must include a detailed description of any commercial interest the Inventor is aware of in such invention.
  
A disclosure form found at the Institutional Policies webpage describing the invention and including other related facts should be prepared by the inventor and forwarded to the University Intellectual Property Committee via the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.

2. Use of University Resources

Individuals may not use University resources, including facilities, personnel, equipment, or confidential information, except in an incidental way, for any non-University purposes, including outside consulting activities or other activities in pursuit of personal gain.

The occasional and infrequent use of the following would typically not constitute "more than incidental use of University resources": routinely available, office-type equipment, including desktop computers and commercially-available software and use of reference materials or other resources collected on the University campus. Use of the following would constitute "more than incidental use of University resources": the use of specialized, research facilities, equipment or supplies provided by the University for academic purposes, or the significant expenditure of an individual’s working hours at the University.

3. University Duty and Mission

Any ownership by the University of a patent or invention, or any determination by the University not to grant an Inventor’s petition to assign a patent or invention to the Inventor, shall not constitute any promise, duty or undertaking on the part of the University with respect to the protection, enforcement or exploitation of such patent or invention. The University’s research and teaching missions take precedence over patent and commercialization considerations. While the University recognizes the benefits of patent development, the direction of University research should not be unduly influenced by patent considerations or personal financial interests.

The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs handles the review of contracts and grants related to University-owned inventions.

 4. Cash Royalties

All licensing and royalty payments from University patents are administered by the Office of Contract and Grant Accounting. The distribution of any such income between the Inventor(s) and the University is negotiable; however, the Inventor(s) will be awarded thirty percent (30%) of any such royalty income after the University is reimbursed for any direct costs such as, for example, costs associated with development, protection, marketing, licensing and enforcement of rights in the Patent Material. After such deductions and after disbursement of the amounts awarded to the Inventors(s), the net amount received by the University will be divided as follows:

- twenty percent (20%) to the Chancellor’s Office;
- twenty percent (20%) to the faculty member’s Dean’s Office;
- twenty percent (20%) to the Chief Operating Officer’s Office;
- fifteen percent (15%) to the faculty member’s department or unit, if no department exists; and
- twenty-five percent (25%) to the faculty member’s laboratory or research center.
The portion of net royalty distributed to the University, Department, laboratory or research center must be used for research or educational purposes only.

5. Administration of Policy

This policy and disputes under this policy will be administered by the Intellectual Property Committee. Decisions of this panel shall be final and nongrievable under other internal processes.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS

1. PATENT

A U.S. patent is a grant issued by the U.S. Government giving an inventor the right to exclude all others from making, using, or selling an invention within the United States, its territories and possessions for a period of time. There are three types of patents in the U.S. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.
  
To obtain a patent, an application is prepared and filed with the U.S. Patent Office. The application process is complex and typically involves the use of specialized counsel. In the case of a utility patent, for example, the Patent Office reviews the application to determine if the invention is new, useful, and nonobvious and, if appropriate, grants a patent. This process can take approximately three to five years. A utility patent has a term of 20 years. Other countries also grant similar patent rights.  

2. PATENTABILITY

Not all inventions are patentable. Questions relating to patentability are often complex and usually require review and advice of specialized counsel. To be patentable under a utility patent for example, an invention must not be obvious to a worker with ordinary skill in that particular field. It must also be novel, meaning it must not have been previously publicly known or used by others or patented or described in a printed publication.
  
Inventions that are otherwise patentable may become unpatentable for a variety of reasons. For example, an invention becomes unpatentable in the United States unless a patent application is filed with the U.S. Patent Office within 12 months after disclosure of the subject invention in a publication or any other action which results in the details of the invention becoming generally available.   

3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMITTEE

The Intellectual Property Committee shall consist of the Chancellor or his or her designee, the Chief Operating Officer, or his or her designee, and a Faculty Senate Designee. 

Approved by Faculty Senate on November 16, 2012

Approved by the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees on November 26, 2012

+ - Integrity in Research Policy

Outlines Chapman University's general policy and principles for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty, and outlines the procedures for handling allegations of misconduct.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Statement of Philosophy

Integrity in research is central to the academic enterprise. All individuals engaged in research at Chapman University are responsible for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty and integrity. Faculty and other supervisors of research activities have a responsibility to set an example and to create an environment which encourages absolute intellectual integrity. Open communication, an emphasis on quality of research and publications, appropriate supervision of personnel, concern for the health and safety of human and animal subjects, maintenance of accurate and detailed records of research procedures and results, and suitable assignment of credit and responsibility for research and publications are all essential for fostering intellectual honesty and integrity in research.

B. Environment of Integrity

Chapman University is committed to promoting a climate of integrity in research. To this end, the University encourages the reporting of any incident of detected or perceived misconduct in research and will take prompt and deliberate action to investigate and address allegations of misconduct, based on the following principles:

  • Institutional and academic responsibility for self-regulation;
  • Mechanisms to protect the rights of the accused, the interests of those making an accusation, and the public interest;
  • The highest degree of confidentiality compatible with an effective response and responsible reporting requirements; and
  • Precautions against conflicts of interest

C. Scope of the Policy

This Policy applies to acts or practices that deviate significantly from those commonly accepted within the scholarly or scientific communities for proposing, conducting, reporting, or performing research. Such acts and practices include but are not limited to: Dishonesty in Presentation and Publication, Deliberate and Serious Violation of Regulation, Fabrication, Falsification, Failure to Report Unethical Research Activities, and Plagiarism. This Policy does not apply to unintentional errors or honest differences in the interpretation or judgment of data, nor does this Policy and its procedures apply to authorship or collaboration disputes.

This Policy and the associated procedures apply to all research activities conducted under the auspices of Chapman University, whether or not they are externally funded. This Policy applies to any individual holding an appointment from, or affiliated with Chapman University, such as faculty members, post-doctoral fellows, trainees, technicians, guest researchers, staff members, graduate students and undergraduate students, nonemployees, regardless of where the research is or was performed or whether they receive pay from the University.

It is the responsibility of individuals applying for research funding or engaged in research at Chapman University to inform themselves of Chapman's policies relating to research and to inform themselves of the policies and procedures of the agencies funding his or her activities. Copies of relevant policies should be available on the website of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Administration and on the website of the Office of Human Resources. Each new researcher should be referred to relevant policy statements. However, all persons engaged in research at Chapman University are ultimately responsible for conducting their activities in accordance with all applicable external and internal rules and regulations.

D. Statute of Limitations

This Policy and its procedures apply only to allegations of misconduct reported to an institutional official within five (5) years of the alleged act, except in the following cases:

  • Where the research involved in the allegation is funded by an external agency that stipulates a longer statute of limitations, the longer statute of limitation shall pertain. For instance, the statute of limitations for research funded by the Public Health Service (PHS) is six (6) years. All persons engaged in funded research at Chapman University are responsible for knowing the limitation period mandated by their funding agency.
  • Where the research involved in the allegation has been cited or republished by the individual against whom the allegation has been made, the five-year limitation period begins at the time of the last citation or publication.
  • Where the research involved in the allegation poses a threat to public health or safety, there is no statute of limitations.

E. Revisions to the Policy

The University's Compliance Committee shall assume responsibility for updating this Policy. All substantive changes to the Policy are subject to approval by the Board of Trustees, except when such changes are mandated by federal funding agencies or applicable law.

II. DEFINITIONS

Administrator: The person who is apprised of the allegation of misconduct and is responsible for conducting an Initial Assessment and determining whether a Preliminary Inquiry and a Formal Investigation are warranted.

Complainant: The individual bringing forth an allegation of misconduct. It is assumed that the Complainant makes the allegation in Good Faith, even if the allegation is proven to be a misunderstanding, misinterpretation or miscalculation of the facts, and that no misconduct was committed.

Complaint Reviewer: The individual(s) charged with conducting a Preliminary Inquiry of an allegation of misconduct. The Complaint Reviewer is appointed by the Administrator.

Dishonesty in Presentation and Publication: Knowingly presenting material or publishing articles that will mislead listeners or readers, e.g., misrepresenting data (particularly its originality); adding the names of other authors without permission or authors who have not earned the credit; exerting pressure to join the list of authors when the level of contribution did not warrant inclusion; citing unpublished papers or scholarly work without permission, or including inadequate footnote or endnote attributions so that readers cannot tell who produced which data; publishing the same material more than once without identification of prior publication; serving as a coauthor of a research paper or article without reviewing the material to be published.  

Deliberate and Serious Violation of Regulation: Deliberate or reckless failure to adhere to safe research practices or to receive the approval required for work under research regulations of federal, state, local, or university agencies; deliberate misuse of research funds.

Evidence: Any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained that tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact.

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

Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Failure to Report Unethical Research Practices: Covering up or otherwise failing to report misconduct in research as set forth in this Policy.

Formal Investigation: The formal examination and evaluation of relevant evidence to determine if misconduct in research has taken place, to evaluate its seriousness, and, if possible, to determine responsibility. A Formal Investigation may also be necessary to determine the extent of any adverse effects resulting from the misconduct and any necessary remedial or follow-up actions (e.g., publications requiring retraction). The Investigation Committee is responsible for conducting the Formal Investigation.

Good Faith: As applied to a Complainant or witness, Good Faith means having a belief in the truth of one's allegations or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant's or witness's position could have based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or testimony is not in Good Faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. Good Faith, as applied to a Complaint Reviewer or Investigation Committee member, means impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this part. Complaint Reviewers or Investigation Committee members do not act in Good Faith if they allow their actions or findings to be influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.

Investigation Committee: The group of individuals appointed by the Administrator to conduct a Formal Investigation of an allegation of misconduct.

Initial Assessmentt: The review of an allegation of misconduct to determine whether a Preliminary Inquiry is warranted. The Administrator is responsible for conducting the Initial Assessment.

Legal Violations: Stealing or destroying the property of others (e.g., research, research papers, supplies, equipment, or products); spoliation; deliberate misuse of research funds.

Misconduct in Research: Any act or practice that deviates significantly from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly or scientific communities for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Misconduct in research includes, but is not limited to, Dishonesty in Presentation and Publication, Deliberate and Serious Violation of Regulation, Fabrication, Falsification, Failure to Report Unethical Research Activities, and Plagiarism. Misconduct in research does not include unintentional error or honest differences in the interpretation or judgment of data.

Plagiarism: Taking credit for someone else's work and ideas, stealing others' results or methods, copying the writing of others without acknowledgment, or otherwise taking credit falsely. This may also include taking or releasing the data of others which were given in the expectation of confidentiality (e.g., appropriating ideas from submitted grant or contract proposals, or manuscripts for publication when one is a reviewer for granting agencies or journals).

Preliminary Inquiry: Information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation of misconduct warrants a Formal Investigation. A Preliminary Inquiry is not intended to determine conclusively if wrongdoing has occurred, or to determine guilt or innocence. The Complaint Reviewer is responsible for conducting the Preliminary Inquiry.

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

Research: A systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to, matters to be studied. : A systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to, matters to be studied.

Research Records: Record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from research activity, including but not limited to: research proposals; laboratory records, including both physical and electronic data; computers and scientific equipment used; progress reports; abstracts; theses; oral presentations; internal reports; journal articles and the like. This also includes documents and materials of research fact provided by the Respondent at any point during the Preliminary Inquiry and Formal Investigation. It does not include notations, interpretations or analyses performed by the Complainant in support of his/her allegation of misconduct.

Respondent: The individual accused of misconduct in research.

Retaliation: Adverse actions of any kind taken against Complainants, Respondents, witnesses, Administrators, Complaint Reviewers, or Investigation Committee members because of their status as Complainant, Respondent, witness, Administrator, Complaint Reviewer, or Investigation Committee member. This definition does not include University personnel actions that may be taken against individuals to protect the integrity of the research and safety of any research subjects or research participants.

Spoliation: The destruction, mutilation or alteration of records or materials unfavorable to the party causing the spoliation.

III. GENERAL POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES

A. Responsibility to Report Misconduct

It is the responsibility of University faculty, staff and students to report any incident of misconduct in Good Faith and in accordance with the definitions and terms of this Policy. Individuals who are unsure whether a suspected incident constitutes misconduct in research are encouraged to discuss the matter with the Vice President of Research, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. Allegations of misconduct originating from any source (student, staff, faculty, or an individual outside of the Chapman University community) shall be pursued in a timely manner and in accordance with this Policy.

B. Protecting Complainants

The identity of the individual filing the allegation of misconduct ("Complainant") will be protected, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the rights of the Respondent in accordance with University policy. If the Complainant has directly observed unethical behavior, he or she should be prepared to testify to that observation if it is necessary to establish that such behavior has occurred. If the initial report of misconduct is oral, it must be put in written form before a Preliminary Inquiry can proceed.

C. Discouraging Negative Actions

The University has zero tolerance for retaliation. Respondents are free to defend themselves against allegations without fear of reprisal for such defense. Malicious allegations on the part of a Complainant will be treated as separate violations of this Policy, incurring appropriate disciplinary action. If it is determined that the allegation was made frivolously, vindictively, maliciously, or with knowledge that the allegation was not true, serious consequences may occur for the Complainant, including dismissal/expulsion, if an employee, student, or faculty member, and/or civil action. Retaliation on the part of the Respondent shall itself be treated as a violation of this Policy, incurring appropriate disciplinary action.

D. Confidentiality

The University expects all individuals involved in an allegation of misconduct to maintain the highest degree of confidentiality compatible with an effective response and responsible reporting requirements. Administrators should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanism to ensure that appropriate confidentiality is maintained.1

E. Notification to Funding Agencies

Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct that involves externally funded research, the University shall make timely notification to the funding agency, as required by that agency. For instance, the University shall notify the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) whenever a credible allegation involves research funded by the Public Health Service (PHS). The Vice President of Research, shall be responsible for notifying external funding agencies.

F. Standard of Proof

The standard of proof used to evaluate an allegation of misconduct and make findings in the Initial Assessment, Preliminary Inquiry, and Formal Investigation phases is Preponderance of the Evidence. The standard of proof used in the Final Decision phase is Preponderance of the Evidence. The burden of proof for making a finding of misconduct in research rests with the University or with the integrity oversight arm of the funding agency. The individual accused of misconduct ("Respondent") has the burden of proof for all affirmative defenses.

IV. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

A. Overview

An allegation of misconduct is considered in phases. An allegation that is found not to warrant further response in any one of these phases does not proceed to the next phase. The phases through which an allegation may pass are, in the order in which they occur:

  1. The Initial Assessment, performed by the Administrator;
  2. The Preliminary Inquiry, performed by the Complaint Reviewer;
  3. The Formal Investigation, performed by the Investigation Committee; and
  4. The Final Decision, performed by the Vice President of Research (in most cases).

B. Reporting Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct shall be reported to various institutional officials, depending on the institutional status of the Respondent. The institutional official shall serve as the Administrator of the allegation, as defined in this Policy. In the case of a potential conflict of interest between the Administrator and the Respondent, or in the case of uncertainty as to the appropriate Administrator (e.g., a Respondent with a dual appointment), the allegation will be referred to the Vice President of Research, who may serve as the Administrator or may appoint some other person to serve as the Administrator for purposes of the complaint.

Respondent Administrator
Student Chair of Academic Integrity Committee
Staff member Chief Operating Officer
Faculty member Unit Dean
Associated researcher Unit Dean
Unit Dean Vice President of Research
Direct reports to the Provost Vice President of Research 
Direct reports to the President Vice President of Research

In most instances, the Vice President of Research is responsible for ruling on potential conflicts of interest, notifying external funding agencies, and rendering a final decision following a Formal Investigation.

V. THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT

A. Purpose

Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct, the appropriate Administrator will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified, and whether the allegation falls within the definition of misconduct as outlined in this Policy.

B. Timeline

The Initial Assessment should be concluded within seven (7) calendar days of the day the Administrator receives the allegation.

C. Notification

Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct, the Administrator must make a Good Faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing that an allegation of misconduct has been made, if the Respondent is known. This notification shall include a brief but specific description of the complaint and shall refer the Respondent to this Policy. If the allegation involves research funded by external agencies, the Administrator shall also notify the Vice President of Research.

D. Examination of Evidence

On the same day the Administrator notifies the Respondent of the allegation, the Administrator shall obtain custody of, inventory, and sequester all research records and evidence needed to conduct the Initial Assessment. In conducting the Initial Assessment, the Administrator need not interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified.

E. Outcome of the Initial Assessment

If the Administrator finds that the complaint (1) does not fall within the scope of misconduct under this Policy, or (2) is not sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified, the Administrator shall inform the Respondent, the Complainant, and the Vice President of Research (in the case of allegations involving external funds) that the allegation will not be investigated further and shall prepare a memorandum to be kept in the Administrator's file.

If the Administrator finds that the complaint (1) falls within the scope of misconduct under this Policy, and (2) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified, the Administrator shall discuss the Preliminary Inquiry and Formal Investigation procedures with the Complainant, where possible. If, pursuant to this discussion, the Administrator determines that the allegation does not concern misconduct within the scope this Policy, or is not sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified (e.g., the Complainant is unable to provide information of a specific incident or act that would constitute misconduct, or the Complainant is unprepared to testify to the misconduct and such a testimony would constitute the only evidence of the misconduct), the Administrator shall inform the Respondent, the Complainant, and the Vice President of Research (in the case of allegations involving external funds) that the allegation will not be investigated further and shall prepare a memorandum to be kept in the Administrator's file.

If, pursuant to the discussion with the Complainant, the Administrator is confirmed in his or her determination of the merit of the allegation, the Administrator shall notify the Respondent and initiate a Preliminary Inquiry. If the Complainant withdraws or otherwise fails to support the allegation (e.g., choosing not to proffer a written allegation) but the Administrator believes there is sufficient cause to pursue the allegation, the Administrator may initiate a Preliminary Inquiry; in such a case there is no Complainant for the purposes of this Policy.

F. Student Respondents

If the Administrator determines that an allegation of misconduct against a student Respondent warrants a Preliminary Inquiry yet also determines that the alleged misconduct: (1) was not supported by external funds; and (2) was not published or presented for external audiences, then the Administrator pursues the complaint in accordance with the procedures described in the Chapman University Academic Integrity Policy.

If the Administrator determines that an allegation of misconduct against a student Respondent warrants a Preliminary Inquiry yet also determines that the alleged misconduct: (1) was supported by external funds; or (2) was published or presented for external audiences, then the Administrator refers the complaint to the Unit Dean who supervises the research in which the misconduct allegedly occurred. The Unit Dean serves as the Administrator from this point forward.

VI. THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY

A. Purpose

The Preliminary Inquiry ("Inquiry") is the first stage of the formal process for handling allegations of misconduct. The purpose of an Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether a Formal Investigation is warranted. Therefore, an Inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.2

B. Timeline

A Preliminary Inquiry is initiated when the Administrator appoints a Complaint Reviewer. The Preliminary Inquiry, including the submission of a written report, shall normally be completed within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Complaint Reviewer is appointed. If the Administrator determines that circumstances warrant a longer period of time, the Administrator may grant an extension. In such a case, the record of the Inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty day period.3

C. Complaint Reviewer

The Inquiry is conducted by the "Complaint Reviewer," who may be the Administrator or may be an individual or individuals appointed by the Administrator to serve in this capacity. In determining who shall serve as Complaint Reviewer, the Administrator should consider the seriousness of the allegations, the need to complete the Inquiry in a timely fashion, the availability of personnel to conduct the Inquiry, and whether the nature of the complaint requires that the Complaint Reviewer have special expertise in order to assess the allegations. The Administrator should not appoint a Complaint Reviewer who has a potential conflict of interest or for a substantial reason might be unable to make an impartial evaluation of the subject of the Inquiry.

If the Administrator does not serve as the Complaint Reviewer, the Administrator shall provide the Complaint Reviewer with a charge letter at the time of appointment. This letter will:

  • Set forth the time for completion of the Inquiry;
  • Describe the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment;
  • State that the purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence, including the testimony of the Respondent, Complainant and key witnesses, to determine whether an Investigation is warranted, but not to determine whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible;
  • State that the Complaint Reviewer is responsible for preparing or directing the preparation of a written report of the Inquiry that meets the requirements of this Policy; and
  • State that the Administrator will call for a Formal Investigation if it is determined: (1) that there is a reasonable basis for concluding that one or more allegation falls within the definition of misconduct, and (2) that the allegation may have substance, based on the Complaint Reviewer's review during the Inquiry.

D. Notification

At the time of or before beginning the Inquiry, the Complaint Reviewer must make a Good Faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing that an allegation of misconduct has been made, if the Respondent is known. This notification shall include a brief but specific description of the complaint, the name(s) of the Complaint Reviewer(s), the purpose of the Inquiry, and a copy of this Policy. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must also be notified in writing.4

Respondents should be given the opportunity to admit that misconduct occurred and that they committed the misconduct. Once such an admission has been made, the University may terminate its review of an allegation, provided the University's acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement is approved by the appropriate funding agencies (if any).5

The Complaint Reviewer shall immediately advise the Vice President of Research if any of the following conditions exist:

  • There is an immediate need to suspend research activities;
  • There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
  • There is an immediate health hazard;
  • There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the Complainant(s) or of the Respondent, as well as principal investigators, co-investigators, co-authors, and associates, if any;
  • There is a likelihood that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
  • There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation as confirmed by the University's counsel. In that instance, the Vice President of Research must inform the funding agency within 24 hours of obtaining that information; or
  • The health or safety of human or animal subjects is at risk or has been compromised, in which case the Vice President of Research shall promptly notify the Chair of the Chapman University Institutional Review Board (CUIRB) or Chair of the Chapman University Institutional Animal Care and User Committee.6

The Vice President of Research shall be responsible for notifying any affected funding agencies, as required, during the Preliminary Inquiry stage.

E. Conflict of Interest

If the Respondent believes that the Complaint Reviewer has a potential conflict of interest or for a substantial reason might be unable to make an impartial evaluation of the Respondent, the Respondent shall notify the Vice President of Research in writing of the specific basis for such a claim within three (3) calendar days of the Respondent's receipt of the Complaint Reviewer's notification. The Vice President of Research shall consider any information provided by the Respondent and any other information deemed relevant by the Vice President of Research, and shall notify the Respondent in writing of the outcome of the Respondent's challenge, which shall be within the Vice President of Research's sound discretion.  

F. Securing Evidence

On the date on which the Respondent is notified, the Complaint Reviewer must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the Inquiry. The Complaint Reviewer shall inventory the records and evidence and sequester them in a secure manner. In the case that the research records or evidence encompass equipment or instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Where appropriate, the Respondent shall be given copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records.7

During the Inquiry, the Respondent shall be expected to provide any evidence requested by the Complaint Reviewer as quickly as possible, and to respond to the complaint and provide other evidence on his or her own behalf within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving notice of the Inquiry.

G. Examination of Evidence

As a matter of good practice, the Complaint Reviewer should interview the Complainant and give him or her a transcript or recording of the interview for correction.8 In addition, the Complaint Reviewer will normally interview the Respondent and key witnesses as well as examine relevant research records and materials. The Complaint Reviewer should be circumspect during the Inquiry, contacting only those individuals reasonably required and apprising them of the need for confidentiality. No inquiries outside of the University should be made at this juncture unless the Complaint Reviewer determines that such Inquiry is reasonably necessary. The scope of the Inquiry is not required to and does not normally include deciding whether misconduct definitely occurred, determining who committed the misconduct, or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses. (However, if a legally sufficient admission of misconduct is made by the Respondent, misconduct may be determined at the Inquiry stage if all relevant issues are resolved.) All reasonable efforts shall be made by the Complaint Reviewer to preserve the confidentiality of all aspects of the Inquiry.

H. Record Keeping

The Complaint Reviewer should keep detailed records of the Inquiry, including contacts with the Respondent, interviews, telephone conversations, and meetings. If the Complaint Reviewer determines to use media recordings for record-keeping purposes, such recordings shall only be made in compliance with applicable law, which generally requires the consent of the recorded parties. Records and data, or copies thereof, essential to the Inquiry must be kept in a secure location under the control of the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs for seven (7) years. Specific security requirements, such as double-locking, vary by funding agency and will be observed as appropriate.9

I. Assistance

The Administrator and the Vice President of Research should be available to the Complaint Reviewer throughout the Inquiry to review the charge, discuss the allegations (including any related issues), review the appropriate procedures for conducting the Inquiry, assist with organizing plans for the Inquiry, answer any questions raised by the Complaint Reviewer, and otherwise advise the Complaint Reviewer as needed. 

The Complaint Reviewer may consult with experts within and without the University in order to conduct a fair and impartial Inquiry and a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence. In all such consultations, the Complaint Reviewer should maintain confidentiality as far as is possible.

J. Draft Inquiry Report

At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Complaint Reviewer shall prepare a Draft Inquiry Report, which shall:

  • Identify the name and position of the Respondent;
  • Provide the name(s) and position(s) of all persons who served as Complaint Reviewers;
  • Describe the allegations of misconduct examined by the Complaint Reviewer;
  • Summarize the process used and evidence reviewed (documentary and interviews);
  • List any external funding agencies that supported the activities in which the misconduct was alleged to have occurred; and
  • Provide a short and plain statement of the Complaint Reviewer's basis for recommending or not
  • recommending that the allegations warrant a Formal Investigation.10
The Complaint Reviewer should submit the Draft Inquiry Report to the University's counsel, who shall review the report for legal sufficiency. The Complaint Reviewer should then submit the Draft Inquiry Report, along with all secured documents and data, to the Administrator.

K. Right to Review and Respond

The Administrator shall be responsible for providing a copy of the Draft Inquiry Report to the Respondent and informing the Respondent that he or she is entitled to comment on the report within ten (10) calendar days from the Respondent's receipt of the report.11

The Administrator shall notify the Complainant whether the Inquiry determined that a Formal Investigation is warranted and may provide relevant portions of the Draft Inquiry Report to the Complainant for comment. The Complainant must enter into a confidentiality agreement in order to access the Inquiry report.

L. Final Inquiry Report

Any comments that are submitted by the Respondent or Complainant will be attached to the Final Inquiry Report. Based on the comments, the Complaint Reviewer may revise the Draft Inquiry Report as appropriate. The Complaint Reviewer shall then finalize the Inquiry report and submit it to the Administrator.

The Final Inquiry Report, along with the Administrator's written determination and any other detailed documentation to support the determination must be maintained by the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs in a secure manner for a period of at least seven (7) years after the termination of the Inquiry.12

M. Outcomes of the Preliminary Inquiry

Within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the Final Inquiry Report, the Administrator, in consultation with the Vice President of Research, shall determine whether the University will conduct a Formal Investigation ("Investigation"). An Investigation is warranted if the Administrator concludes that: (1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that one or more allegations fall within the definition of misconduct under this Policy, and (2) the information gathered during the Inquiry indicates that the allegation of misconduct may have substance.

If the Administrator determines that an Investigation is not warranted, the Administrator shall provide the Respondent, the Vice President of Research with a copy of the Final Inquiry Report, along with a letter explaining the Administrator's determination that an Investigation is not warranted. The Administrator shall also provide a copy of this letter to the Complainant and may provide the Complainant with relevant portions of the Final Inquiry Report, as the Administrator deems appropriate.

If the Administrator determines that an Investigation is warranted, he or she shall notify the Respondent, in writing, of the initiation of an Investigation. This notification shall (1) specify the allegations of misconduct to be investigated, (2) inform the Respondent of his or her right to be represented by counsel or other advisor during the Investigation, and (3) refer the Respondent to this Policy. The Administrator shall also provide the Respondent with a copy of the Final Inquiry Report and any other detailed documentation to support the determination of the Administrator. If the alleged misconduct involves research supported by external funds, the Administrator shall refer the Respondent to Part 93 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). If the alleged misconduct involves research supported by the National Science Foundation, the Administrator shall refer the Respondent to Part 689 of Title 45 CFR.13

If the Administrator determines that an Investigation is warranted, the Administrator shall also notify the Vice President of Research by providing a copy of the advising letter, along with a copy of the Final Inquiry Report. The Vice President of Research shall be responsible for notifying external funding agencies, as required, and for providing these agencies with the following information, upon request: (1) a copy of this Policy; (2) the research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings or any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and (3) the charges to be considered in the Investigation.14

The Administrator shall also notify principal investigators, co-investigators, and co-authors, if any, whose research may be affected by the alleged misconduct. These individuals must enter into a confidentiality agreement in order to access the Inquiry report.

If an Investigation has been deemed necessary, the Administrator shall also notify the Complainant and may provide the Complainant with relevant portions of the Final Inquiry Report, as the Administrator deems appropriate. The Complainant must enter into a confidentiality agreement in order to access the Inquiry report.

VII. THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION

A. Purpose

The purpose of the Formal Investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether misconduct has been committed, by whom and to what extent, and what disciplinary actions (if any) should be imposed. The Investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegation. 

B. Timeline

The Administrator shall appoint an Investigation Committee ("Committee") within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the Administrator determines that an Investigation is warranted.15 The Committee shall normally conclude its Investigation and submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations within one hundred twenty calendar days (120) of being appointed. If this deadline cannot be met, the Committee shall submit a request for an extension to the Administrator, along with an interim report on their progress to date and an estimated date for the completion of the report. If the Administrator approves this request, the Administrator shall provide a copy of the interim report, along with an explanation justifying the extension, to the Respondent, the Vice President of Research.16 The Vice President of Research, of their designee, shall inform funding agencies of the extension, as required by these funding agencies.

C. Investigation Committee

The Investigation Committee is charged with conducting the Formal Investigation. The Committee shall include at least three members, all of whom shall hold the rank of Full Professor and at least one of whom shall be tenured. In appointing members of the Committee, the Administrator shall consider the relationship of the Respondent(s) to the University and whether the allegations relate to research that was supported by external funding. In all cases the Committee must consist of individuals who do not have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest that would prevent them from acting without bias. The Committee should include at least one individual from outside the Respondent's primary unit, and should include at least one individual with the appropriate expertise to conduct the Investigation, interview the Respondent and Complainant, and evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation.17 The Administrator may not serve on the Committee.

At the time of appointment, the Administrator shall provide a charge letter to the Committee. This letter shall:

  • Describe the allegations and any related issues identified during the Inquiry;
  • Identify the Respondent;
  • Inform the Committee that it must conduct the Investigation as prescribed by this Policy;
  • Provide a definition of misconduct in research;
  • Inform the Committee that it must evaluate the evidence and testimony to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, misconduct has occurred and, if so, the type and extent of it and who was responsible; and
  • Inform the Committee that it must prepare or direct the preparation of a written report of the Investigation that meets the requirements of this Policy

D. Notification

The Administrator shall notify the Respondent, in writing, of the initiation of an Investigation and the identities of the individuals who have agreed to serve on the Committee. The Administrator shall also notify the Respondent, in writing, of any new allegations, not addressed in the Inquiry or in the initial notice of investigation, within a reasonable time after the determination to pursue those allegations.18  

The Administrator shall notify the Vice President of Research of Research Integrity of the initiation of any Investigation. In addition, the Administrator and/or the Committee shall notify the Vice President of Research immediately if any of the following conditions, which were not reported in the Preliminary Inquiry phase, are deemed likely to exist:

  • There is an immediate need to suspend research activities;
  • There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
  • There is an immediate health hazard;
  • There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the Complainant(s) or of the Respondent, as well as principal investigators, co-investigators, co-authors, and associates, if any;
  • There is a likelihood that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
  • There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation as confirmed by the University's counsel. In that instance, the Vice President of Research or their designee must inform the funding agency within 24 hours of obtaining that information; or
  • The health or safety of human or animal subjects is at risk or has been compromised, in which case the Vice President of Research or their designee shall promptly notify the Chair of the Chapman University Institutional Review Board (CUIRB) or Chair of the Chapman University Institutional Animal Care and User Committee.19
The Vice President of Research or their designee shall be responsible for notifying any affected funding agencies, as required, during the Formal Investigation stage.

E. Conflict of Interest

If the Respondent believes that any proposed Committee member has a potential conflict of interest or for a substantial reason might be unable to make an impartial evaluation of the Respondent, the Respondent shall notify the Vice President of Research in writing of the specific basis for such a claim within three (3) calendar days of the Respondent's receipt of the Complaint Reviewer's notification. The Vice President of Research shall consider any information provided by the Respondent and any other information deemed relevant by the Vice President of Research, and shall notify the Respondent in writing of the outcome of the Respondent's challenge, which shall be within the Vice President of Research's sound discretion.

F. Securing Evidence

On the date on which the Respondent is notified of the initiation of an Investigation, the Administrator shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner all research records and evidence needed to conduct the Investigation that were not previously sequestered during the Inquiry. The need for additional sequestration of records for the Investigation may occur for any number of reasons, including the University'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.20

G. Examination of Evidence

The Committee shall examine evidence including, but not limited to, the following: research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of meetings or telephone calls. The Committee must interview the Complainant, where possible, and provide him or her a copy of the transcript or recording of the interview for correction. The Committee must also interview the Respondent and provide him or her a copy of the transcript or recording of the interview for correction. The Committee should also interview individuals suggested by the Complainant and the Respondent, as well as other individuals determined by the Committee as likely to have pertinent information regarding material allegations. Transcripts or detailed summaries of these interviews should be provided to the interviewed party for correction and should be included in the investigator file.21 If the Committee determines to use media recordings for record-keeping process, such recordings shall only be made in compliance with applicable law, which generally requires the consent of the recorded parties.

The Committee shall exercise all diligence to examine all evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation. The Committee should also diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are deemed relevant to the Investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible misconduct.22

H. Record Keeping

The Committee should maintain a detailed investigative file, including a log of investigative activities, copies of correspondence related to the Investigation, transcripts or summaries of interviews, reference materials used in the course of the Investigation, and other documents gathered for purposes of the Investigation. Records and data, or copies thereof, essential to the Investigation must be kept in a secure location under the control of the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs for seven (7) years. Specific security requirements, such as double-locking, vary by funding agency and will be observed as appropriate.23

I. Assistance

The Administrator and the Vice President of Research or their designee should be available to the Committee throughout the Investigation to review the charge, discuss the allegations (including any related issues), review the appropriate procedures for conducting the Investigation, assist with organizing plans for the Investigation, answer any questions raised by the Committee, and otherwise advise the Committee.

The Committee may consult with experts within and without the University in order to conduct a fair and impartial Investigation and a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence. In all such consultations, the Complaint Reviewer should maintain confidentiality as far as is possible.

J. Draft Investigation Report

Upon completing its Investigation, the Committee shall prepare a Draft Investigation Report. The Draft Investigation Report shall:

  • Identify the Respondent(s)
  • Describe the nature of the allegation of misconduct;
  • Describe and document the level of support from external funding agencies implicated in the allegation;
  • Describe the specific allegations of misconduct considered in the Investigation;
  • Include the institutional policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted;
  • Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed;
  • Include transcripts or accurate summaries of interviews conducted during the course of the Investigation;
  • Include a statement of findings for each allegation of misconduct identified during the Investigation. Each statement of findings must: (1) specify the nature of the misconduct and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (2) summarize the facts and the analysis that support the conclusion, utilizing the appropriate burden of proof and considering the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent, including any effort by the Respondent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she did not engage in misconduct because of honest error or a difference of opinion; (3) identify the support by external funding agencies, if any; (4) identify whether any publications need correction or retraction; (5) identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and (6) list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with external funding agencies; and
  • Describe the Committee's recommendations for disciplinary action, if any, in accordance with applicable University policies.24
  • The Committee should submit the Draft Investigation Report to the University's counsel, who shall review the report for legal sufficiency. The Committee should then submit the Draft Investigation Report, along with all secured documents and data, to the Administrator.

K. Right to Review and Respond

The Administrator shall be responsible for providing the Respondent with a copy of the Draft Investigation Report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence on which the Draft Investigation Report is based. The Respondent will be allowed thirty (30) calendar days from the date he or she received the Draft Investigation Report to submit comments to the Administrator. The Respondent's comments (if any) must be included and considered in the Final Investigation Report.25

The Administrator may also provide the Complainant a copy of the Draft Investigation Report, or relevant portions of the Draft Investigation Report and any supporting evidence, for comment. If the Draft Investigation Report is provided to the Complainant, the Complainant will be allowed thirty (30) calendar days from the date he or she received the Draft Investigation to submit comments to the Administrator. The Complainant's comments (if any) must be included in the Final Investigation Report. The Complainant must enter into a confidentiality agreement in order to access the Draft Investigation Report.26

L. Final Investigation Report and Recommendations

The Administrator will assist the Committee in finalizing the Draft Investigation Report, including ensuring that the comments of the Respondent and Complainant (if any) are included and that the Committee's recommended actions are clearly stated. The Administrator shall add to the Investigation Report his or her written concurrence with the Committee's recommendations or his or her alternative recommendations, in case the Administrator does not agree with the recommendations of the Committee. The Administrator shall transmit the Final Investigation Report to the Respondent, the Vice President of Research, within seven (7) calendar days of receiving it from the Committee. 

M. Right to Review and Respond

The Respondent shall have seven (7) calendar days to provide a response to the actions recommended in the Final Investigation Report. This response shall be limited to the recommendation of discipline (as opposed to a challenge to the determination that misconduct occurred). The Administrator may also provide the Vice President of Research with recommendations regarding the other findings and conclusions of the Committee.

VIII. CONCLUSION

A. The Final Decision

Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the last day for Respondent to submit a response to the Final Investigation Report, the Vice President of Research will determine in writing: (1) whether the University accepts the Final Investigation Report and its findings, and (2) what the University's actions in response to the findings shall be. In making the Final Decision, the Vice President of Research shall use Preponderance of the Evidence as the standard of proof. If the Final Decision rendered by the Vice President of Research varies from the findings and recommendations of the Committee, the Vice President of Research will, as part of this written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the Committee. Alternatively, the Vice President of Research may return the report to the Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.

B. Notification

When the Vice President of Research has reached a Final Decision on the case, the Vice President of Research will normally notify, in writing, the Respondent, the Administrator, the Principal Investigator(s) (if any), and the Complainant. The Vice President of Research will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals, collaborators, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The Vice President of Research is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.27

C. Right to Appeal

If the Respondent is a faculty member subject to Section X of the Chapman University Faculty Manual ("Section X"), he or she may file a grievance with respect to any disciplinary action imposed as a result of a finding of misconduct, in accordance with the procedures described in Section X. Such grievance shall be limited to the nature and level of disciplinary action imposed. The Faculty Grievance Board shall accept the factual findings and conclusions of the Investigation, and shall not accept evidence or consider argument relating to the underlying factual findings of the Investigation, such as whether misconduct occurred.

Students, who do not otherwise have an academic, administrative, or staff title, may appeal under the policies and procedures outlined in the Chapman University Student Conduct Code or procedures of the Academic Integrity Committee depending on the findings.

Staff members may appeal under relevant policies in the Staff and Administrative Handbook.
In the event of any inconsistencies between this Policy and otherwise applicable provisions of the Faculty Manual, Student Conduct Code, Academic Integrity Committee or Staff and Administrative Handbook, the provisions of this Policy shall be applied.

D. Restoration of Reputation of the Respondent

If an Investigation is found to be not warranted, or the Respondent has been exonerated by an Investigation, all references to the allegation(s) shall be expunged from the Respondent's personnel file. In addition, the University will endeavor to restore the Respondent's reputation. This may be accomplished through communication with members of the research community who are aware of the allegation, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of misconduct was previously publicized, or taking other steps worked out in coordination with the Respondent and the Vice President of Research.28

E. Termination or Resignation of the Respondent

The termination of the Respondent's institutional affiliation, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of the University's responsibilities.

If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position after the University receives an allegation of misconduct, the Initial Assessment will proceed, as well as the Inquiry and Investigation, as appropriate based on the outcome of the preceding steps. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the Administrator, Complaint Reviewer, and Committee will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion regarding the allegation, noting in their reports the Respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.

F. Premature Closures

Generally, all Inquiries and Investigations will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. If the University plans to end proceedings at the Inquiry, Investigation, or appeal stages on the basis that the Respondent has admitted guilt, the University has reached a settlement with the Respondent, or for any other reason except for a finding of no misconduct, the Vice President of Research must notify the appropriate funding agencies in advance.29

Approved: March 28, 2016

1: 42 CFR § 93.108

2: 42 CFR § 93.307(c)

3: 42 CFR § 93.307(g)

4: 42 CFR §§ 93.304(c), 93.307(b)

5: 42 CFR § 93.316 

6: 42 CFR § 93.318 

7: 42 CFR §§ 93.305, 93.307(b)

8: 42 CFR § 93.310(g) 

9: 42 CFR § 93.309(c) 

10: 42 CFR § 93.309(a) 

11: 42 CFR §§ 93.304(e), 93.307(f)

12: 42 CFR § 93.308(c) 

13: 42 CFR § 93.308(a) 

14: 42 CFR § 93.309(a) and (b)

15: 42 CFR § 93.310(a)

16: 42 CFR § 93.3011

17: 42 CFR § 93.304(b)

18: 42 CFR § 93.310(c)

19: 42 CFR § 93.318

20: 42 CFR § 93.310(d)

21: 42 CFR § 93.310(g) 

22: 42 CFR § 93.310(e) and (h)

23: 42 CFR § 93.317(b) 

24: 42 CFR § 93.313 

25: 42 CFR §§ 93.304(f), 93.312(a)

26: 42 CFR §§ 93.312(b), 93.313(g)

27: 42 CFR § 93.315

28: 42 CFR § 93.304(k)

29: 42 CFR § 93.316(a)

+ - Principal Investigator Eligibility Policy

Outlines the eligibility requirements to be a Principal Investigator (PI) at Chapman University, and the process for requesting an exception to the requirements.

Purpose

This Policy is intended to set forth the eligibility requirements of a Principal Investigator (PI) at Chapman University (CU). This Policy also describes the processes for requesting and approving exceptions to the PI eligibility requirements

Definition of Principal Investigator

A Principal Investigator is responsible for the intellectual direction, design, scientific or technical conduct, administrative conduct, and reporting of a research, training, or public service project. As such, the University recognizes one individual as the Principal Investigator and he/she must personally participate in the project to a significant degree and provide oversight on project activities. Proposals submitted for extramural funding or to the University regulatory oversight committees must name an eligible employee of the University to serve as Principal Investigator. In order to be designated as the PI on a proposal, sponsored project, or Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) protocol, an individual must be PI eligible. 

The majority of funding agencies recognize only one Principal Investigator. In those instances where several names are listed in the proposal, the agency assumes that the first name listed is primus inter pares (first between equals).

Other collaborating researchers who carry out portions of the project are considered to be Co-Principal Investigators (Co-PI) or Co-Investigators (Co-I). In order to serve as Co-PI or Co-I, an individual must be PI eligible. Although the PI may delegate fiscal or administrative aspects of the project to a Co-PI or Co-I, the PI still bears primary responsibility for the project.

In the event of an apparent conflict between policies of the University and the funding agency, the more restrictive policy shall be followed. 

Appointments Eligible for Principal Investigator Status

  • Faculty with Full-time (>30 hours) status including, tenure track, tenured, research, and clinical.
  • Administrators
  • Librarians, Associate Librarians, Assistant Librarians
  • Faculty with Emeritus status
  • Provost and Presidential Fellows
  • Academic Professionals in the Research Scientist series (Sr. Research Scientist, Research Scientist)

Appointments That Require Prior Approval for Principal Investigator Status

Anyone who wishes to serve as Principal Investigator, but does not meet the eligibility criteria set forth above, must receive approval from the Vice President for Research upon the recommendation of their Dean, Director or Vice President in order to serve in the Principal Investigator Role. The individual must have the necessary experience and independence to compete for his or her own sponsored program and/or to administer the project. They must have previous experience with similar types of research projects and the ability to comply with all the requirements of the award or project. These individuals include, but are not limited to:

  • Faculty with visiting appointments of less than the term of the grant if awarded
  • Affiliated Scholars with non-employee status on courtesy appointments
  • Faculty with full-time status who are identified as instructional faculty
  • Appointees salaried at less than full time status including adjunct faculty or lecturers
  • Postdoctoral scholars or trainees
  • Research Associates

Appointments That Are Non-Eligible for PI Status

  • Graduate Students. Faculty advisors or mentors will be designated as Principal Investigators for graduate student fellowships or traineeships awarded as grants to the university.
  • Research Assistants
  • Undergraduate Students

Requesting an Exception

To request an exception to the PI policy, a formal request must be made to the Vice President for Research via email to include the following:
  1. Current Curriculum Vitae
  2. A copy of their Appointment Term or Faculty Contract
  3. Summary Statement of the proposed project
  4. Recommendation of Dean, Director or Vice President. Recommenders should carefully consider whether the PI requesting exception has the ability and experience necessary to administer the project if the exception is approved. If department or college resources are needed, assurance must be given that the necessary space or other resources will be provided or made available for the entire length of the project.
Revised: December 9, 2016

+ - Facilities and Administrative Cost Allocation Policy

Policy for administration of facilities and administrative (F&A) costs associated with managing sponsored projects.

Background on Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs

Previously known as indirect cost, F&A cost is the University’s recovery for overhead and other indirect expenses associated with managing sponsored projects. The University absorbs certain costs in administering sponsored programs but certain expenses cannot be specifically identified with a particular sponsored program or directly charged to it. Examples of these expenses include general office supplies, utilities, and most general administrative assistance. These administrative expenses are therefore reimbursed as part of the F&A cost. The F&A cost is allocated as a percentage of either a Salary & Wages (S&W), Total Direct Costs (TDC), or Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) base. For federal awards, the Financial Services negotiates a new rate agreement every four to five years with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

F&A costs promote research and scholarly activity at Chapman University. Therefore, unless the sponsor restricts the rate in writing, or there is a documented waiver by an authorized individual(s), Principal Investigators (PIs) must include F&A costs in their proposal at the current negotiated rate so that the University can be reasonably reimbursed for the indirect costs associated with managing the sponsored program.

Distribution of F&A Recovery

In order to stimulate further research and to reimburse the unit that generated the F&A recovery, the University has elected to allocate the F&A recovery in the following manner. The allocation will be made on an individual grant basis, depending on the actual amount recovered from the sponsor.

Percentage

Area

Purpose

25% General Fund To reimburse central administrative expenses related to research
25% Principal Investigator For future research related costs. If the sponsored program was submitted by a Program Director or other University Administrator, the allocation will be credited to the program for future related costs associated with operating the unit or program. 
25% Acad. Dean To seed research projects, support research travel and other activities, and/or to cover administrative costs. Funds will be used to cover any overdrafts on sponsored programs.
25% Office of Research To support and advance research across campus and support of central administrative expenses for sponsored programs and compliance

Institutes and Centers:

For approved Centers within Schools/Colleges and Institutes reporting to Provost, the allocation will be distributed from the Academic Dean portion as follows:

Percentage

Area

Purpose

15% Center Director To support research related and administrative costs associated with operating the center.
10% Dean To seed research projects, support research travel and other activities and/or to cover administrative costs.

Distribution Process

For proper internal control and budgeting, the F&A recovery will be allocated in accordance to the following procedures:

Availability

For each distribution area, the Office of Research will create an account under the unrestricted fund as a University-designated unrestricted account. Unspent funds will carry forward from fiscal year to fiscal year.

Burden of F&A Cost

The Office of Research will burden each sponsored program with the appropriate F&A cost based on negotiated rates or other predetermined rates on a monthly basis. When F&A recovery is received or accrued, portions will be properly transferred into their respective unrestricted accounts.

Specific Usage of Funds

All funds should be expended for University-related purposes in accordance with existing University policies and procedures. These funds are intended to support research-related costs, and a detailed listing of research related costs is provided in the next section.

PI’s Allocation

The Office of Research will create an individual project code to assist the PI in tracking their F&A research fund allocation. The PI should adhere to all University policies and procedures when using these funds. These funds must be used for research-related costs.

If the PI leaves the University, these allocated funds will be forfeited and returned to the University’s General Fund.

Dean’s Allocation

The Dean’s allocation will be used under the discretion of the Dean, provided that consideration is given to research-related costs. These funds could be used to assist with cost sharing (also known as matching) and adjunct instruction costs required when PIs experience course reduction in order to complete a sponsored research project. When using these funds for cost sharing, Dean’s should follow the existing procedures issued by the Financial Services and the Office of Research, in order to ensure that the cost sharing expenditures are properly documented for reporting and future reference.

The Dean may elect to give a portion of the F&A to the Departments or Units within their School or College. The department’s allocation will be used under the discretion of the department heads, provided that consideration is given to research related costs. These funds could be used to seed research projects, to support research travel and other activities, and/or to cover research related administrative costs such as general office supplies, phone, postage and other administrative needs. They will also be used to cover any overdrafts on sponsored projects. 

Director’s Allocation

The Director’s allocation should be used for a variety of research related purposes including the administrative support of pre and post award functions for the Center/Institute, costs associated with general operations of the Center/Institute and potentially any bridge funding of research personnel.

Office of Research

The Office of Research allocation will be used by their respective units with the intention of supporting and advancing research across campus and support of central administrative expenses for sponsored programs and compliance.

Examples of appropriate uses of F&A allocations are described below:

  • Operations support: Clerical salaries, postage, phones, etc. needed to manage the project but for which the federal sponsor expects F&A to pay.
  • Bridge funding: Salaries and benefits for key personnel to retain them between grants, as well as supplies, travel and clerical support to develop proposals for new funding.
  • Sponsor-required cost sharing: Costs to meet sponsor-required percentages or dollar amounts for cost sharing as documented in proposals or grant agreements.
  • Allowable project costs: Salaries for research assistants, chemical supplies, travel for grant purposes, or other types of support approved but not fully funded by the sponsor.
  • Non-allowable or non-allocable but related project costs: Items such as participant food, promotional items, office equipment, boat rental fees, space rent, etc. that the sponsor does not allow but that are needed to conduct or enhance the project.
  • Project development costs: Pilot projects; proposal writing; proposal typing/editing; travel to conferences and/or to meet with sponsors; expenses to host sponsors, prospective partners, or influential project supporters; specialized equipment, and workshops leading to proposal submissions.
  • Research faculty recruitment and initial support: Salaries/equipment for new faculty or research faculty bringing grants with them from another institution; salaries for promising research associates or new faculty with the expectation they will write proposals and obtain future grants.
  • Research center/institute support: Shared administrative/executive assistants, technicians, equipment purchases or maintenance, and other support for groups of principal investigators.
  • Personnel support for sponsored projects and compliance: support positions for research administration support of pre and post award management and all areas of research compliance (i.e., human subjects, animal use, conflict of interest, export controls, research misconduct).
Revised: August 8, 2017

+ - Principal Investigator Incentive Policy

Policy provides an overview of eligibility requirements and procedures for PI annual incentive payments.

Introduction

The Chapman University Principal Investigator (PI) Incentive Pay Program has been developed to enhance sponsored research and scholarly activities. By providing the opportunity for Principal Investigators (as defined in Chapman University’s PI Eligibility Policy) to be eligible for annual incentive payments, the program provides incentives for PIs to secure externally-funded research grants and contracts. The program is in addition to the Institutional Base Salary for PIs. Participation in the program is voluntary and is not mandated upon either the PI or the university.

Purpose

The purpose of the PI Incentive Pay Program is to recognize and reward recipients of external funds that enhance research, scholarship, service and creativity; promote best practices in teaching and learning; and implement other program improvements that advance the mission of Chapman University.

The incentive pay is intended as a one-time, annual supplement to the recipient’s regular base salary (Institutional Base Salary or IBS). The payment is not part of the IBS for any purpose. The incentive payment is subject to the applicable federal and state taxes and FICA withholdings, but not eligible for contributions under retirement plans. The incentive payment does not affect a recipient’s eligibility for merit or other salary increases. Incentive payment may also be taken as funds to the PIs indirect cost account for research purposes.

Participation in the Program

Participation in the program is voluntary and is possible when eligible faculty charge at least 5% effort and related portion of his/her Institutional Base Salary and fringe benefits to an extramurally sponsored grant/contract budget. The PI will draw salary from the grant/contract account proportionate to his/her effort devoted to the project, thereby creating funds for this incentive program as salary savings from a Chapman University operational budget.

Under exceptional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis, a PI may be eligible for the program if they successfully acquire significant external funding from sources that do not allow for inclusion of salary in the grant/contract budget. Such exceptional circumstances must be justified by the dean and department head and approved by the Vice President for Research and the Provost. In such cases, the annualized effort for the employee approved on the grant/contract submission will be used to calculate the recovered salary for the parameters of the incentive payment calculations.

Incentive payments are contingent upon the PI meeting the eligibility requirements and complying with the terms and conditions of the program.

Incentive payments may not be paid from federal or state grants/contracts. Incentive payments will be paid from institutional operational accounts. The source of funds in these accounts will normally be funds recovered from charging a portion of the PIs salary to grant/contract funds. The payment may not be made by offsetting salary from one grant/contract account to another grant/contract. 

Under normal circumstances, a PIs effort charged to a grant/contract will be attributed to the research portion of the PIs workload. For pre-approved cases where the PI has already fulfilled the effort related to research portion of his/her workload, incentive payments from recovered salary will occur only after the amount of funds necessary to acquire the services needed to fulfill the teaching, advising and other responsibilities of the PI carrying out the grant/contract funded research has been determined and set aside for such purposes.

Eligibility Criteria; Terms and Conditions

All Principal Investigators, as defined in Chapman University’s PI Eligibility policy, are eligible for the program. To be approved, eligible PIs must have:

  1. received at least “meets expectations” in their most recent annual review in all assigned duties;
  2. demonstrated proper fiscal and administrative management of all grants/contracts for which he/she is/was principal investigator or co-principal investigator, including: compliance with all relevant institutional, state, and federal research-related policies; and completion of time and effort reports in a timely and accurate manner, as determined by the their department head/director and the Director of Sponsored Projects Services; and
  3. charged at least 5% effort and related portion of his/her Institutional Base Salary and fringe benefits to an extramurally sponsored grant/contract budget.

Incentive payment(s) shall not modify the PIs IBS and shall not, under any circumstances, be paid from sponsored project funds.

The program will be implemented in compliance with all applicable federal regulations and policies of Chapman University.

To be eligible for the incentive program, a grant or contract must pay all direct costs and the maximum facility and administrative (F&A) costs. In cases where the funding agency has a written F&A limit which is less than the institution’s federally negotiated rates, the program will apply provided the recovered F&A rate is at least 8% of modified total direct costs.

To be eligible for the incentive program, a grant or contract must have been routed and approved by the official University processes established by the Office of Research Sponsored Projects Services.

The incentive program does not apply to external funds obtained from unrestricted gifts.

Administrative personnel at the rank of Dean or above are eligible for incentive compensation under this program only with the prior written approval of the Provost and the VP of Research.

All incentive payments under the program shall be subject to the availability of financial resources for the program and to any applicable state or federal laws, regulations or policies.

Procedures

Intent to participate and to include a grant or contract in the program must be approved at the proposal submission stage by Office of Research Sponsored Projects Services as part of the campus routing process for grants and contracts submission. On the proposal routing form, mark “Yes” on the “will be included in the Faculty Incentive Pay Program.”

After a grant proposal has been successfully awarded, the PI and department head, dean or authorized director will approve an ERCR form to charge the correct proportion of salary to the appropriate grant or contract. The incentive payment will be contingent upon completion of the approval process, which includes approvals by the PIs Department Head/Director (if applicable), Dean, Provost and VPR based on the eligibility guidelines.

The first obligation on recovered salary is the payment of any costs incurred to provide services a PI will not be providing because of the responsibilities to the grant/contract research/scholarly activities. Only after these obligations have been fully and completely accounted for shall the net recovered salary be available to fund an incentive payment. For the purposes of this incentive program, a buyout of teaching will not normally be approved unless the PI has exceeded his/her research percentage assignment.

Eligible PIs must be employed by Chapman University at the time of the pay-out at the end of Chapman’s fiscal year to receive the incentive payment.

Incentive Pay Calculations

The amount of the incentive payment to the PI is 50% of the net salary savings to the appropriated funding source.

Since, historically, department or university operational accounts have been able to recover 100% of salary savings generated from sponsored project activity and may be dependent on salary savings for operational costs, chairs and deans can determine whether or not more than 50% of net recovered salary savings will be paid to the PI.

The following costs may be factored into the incentive payment calculation:

  1. Compensation to the department for costs incurred to replace the PIs contributions to the department
  2. Other costs incurred by the department for support of the project that are not recovered elsewhere.

Examples of Incentive Pay Calculations:

#1 Dr. Jones’ institutional base salary is $100,000. His annual workload assignment allocates 20% of his time to research activities. He is a co-PI on a grant that pays for 10% of his time to conduct research on a sponsored project during his 12 month on-contract period.
- Net salary savings: $10,000 50% of net salary savings: $5,000
- The faculty member may receive $5,000 in incentive pay as salary or to IDC account

#2 A faculty member with a 9-month appointment receives external funding to pay for her salary to work on a sponsored project during the fall semester and negotiates with her chair to buyout a course to conduct the research for the sponsored project. The faculty member’s base salary is $75,000 and the course buyout is $9,375 (12.5% of the base salary) which will make up the total amount of salary savings.
- Salary savings: $9,375
- Net Salary Saving = Salary savings – replacement instructor (varies among College/School)
- The faculty member may receive 50% of the Net Salary Savings in incentive pay as salary or to IDC account

Program Modification and/or Termination

Modifications to any aspect of this program may be implemented at any time, as determined by the Vice President for Research in consultation with the Provost. Such modifications may occur through amendment of this program or through written notice to the deans of affected academic units.

The PI Incentive Pay Program may be terminated at any time by the Vice President for Research in consultation with the Provost and Vice President of Human Resources.

Approved: December 15, 2016

Revised: March 13, 2018

+ - Proposal Deadline Guidelines

Provides guidelines for the notification and timing of the submission of materials for successful proposal submission with Sponsored Projects Services.

Each month, Sponsored Projects Services (SPS) reviews, signs, and submits many proposals, contracts, and agreements. Numerous administrative requirements exist and proposals must be carefully reviewed for completeness and compliance prior to submission. Consequently, in order to provide the best possible service and ensure timely submission, SPS has the following deadlines for proposal processing. The deadlines depend upon the following complicating factors:

  • Direct costs greater than $1M/year
  • Cost sharing (e.g., In Kind, institutional commitment)
  • Deadlines imposed by other institutions where CU is subawardee
  • External Collaborators/Sub-awards
  • Requires additional space
  • Involves a foreign sponsor  

STANDARD PROPOSALS (no complicating factors)

NON-STANDARD PROPOSALS (w/ complicating factors)

1. Initiate proposal in Cayuse SP or notify your SPS Research Administrator: At least 10 working days before the submission deadline. Provide: 1) basic proposal information (PIs, etc.), 2) a preliminary budget, and 3) a reference/link to the proposal guidelines.   1. Initiate proposal in Cayuse SP or notify your SPS Research Administrator: At least 20 working days before the submission deadline. Provide: 1) basic proposal information (PIs, etc.), 2) a preliminary budget, and 3) a reference/link to the proposal guidelines. 
2. Final budget, required documents, and Routing Form: 4 working days before the submission deadline. A draft technical section* is appropriate at this time. 2. Final budget, required documents and Routing Form: 4 working days before the submission deadline. A draft technical section* is appropriate at this time.
Final technical section: 2 working days before the 3. Final technical section: 2 working days before the submission deadline. 

*If a draft technical section is submitted, SPS must be notified that a final version will be submitted later. The final technical section may not change 1) the amount of project funds requested from the sponsor, 2) the project’s budget justification, 3) cost sharing or matching, 4) F&A (indirect) costs requested, 5) effort of key project personnel, or 6) subcontracts. 

VERY LARGE PROPOSALS: (Direct costs $1M/year or more)

Any proposal with direct costs greater than $1M/year must be brought to SPO’s attention as early as possible.

Proposal Deadline Summary

STANDARD

NON-STANDARD

VERY LARGE

Notify SPS 10 working days 20 working days As soon as identified
Budget finalization and final docs 4 working days 4 working days 1 month
Final technical section & certifications 2 working days 2 working days 5 working days

EXCEPTIONS

The Sponsored Project Services understands that there may be mitigating circumstances for late preparation of a proposal. In these situations, individual circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and reasonable efforts will be made to review the proposals. However, proposal accuracy cannot be guaranteed if these deadlines are not adhered to, and proposals received after the deadlines cannot be prioritized ahead of proposals that meet the requirements. If a late submission is anticipated, it is important to notify SPS in advance so an appropriate plan can be established. In many instances at least a partial review of the proposal, particularly the administrative and financial sections, can be initiated in an effort to accommodate truncated timelines.

+ - The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

FCPA is a Federal Law that contains anti-bribery prohibitions and accounting compliance provisions designed to forbid corrupt payments involving foreign government officials.

+ - Sponsored Activity Financial Disclosure Policy

Policy provides appropriate training in, and management of, actual or potential financial conflicts of interest in externally sponsored activities.

POLICY STATEMENT

This Sponsored Activity Financial Disclosure policy is desired to require appropriate training in, and management of, actual or potential financial conflicts of interest in externally sponsored activities, and is intended to fulfull the requirements of federal grantee institutions and contractors as set forth in 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart F, and 45 CFR Part 94, respectively.

SCOPE

This policy applies to all personnel, regardless of title or portion, responsible for the design, conduct, negotiating, contracting, or reporting of externally sponsored activities (each an "investigator").

An "externally sponsored activity" means PHS-Funded research, federally funded research, and public or privately funded research or services under the auspices of Chapman University. "PHS" means the Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and any components of the PHS to which the authority involved may be delegated, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This policy also applies to employees in positions of administrative leadership or direction of recognized University research center or institutes, where a regular job requirement is to make institutional decisions regarding externally sponsored activities on behalf of the University ("Directors").

POLICY

  1. Disclosure of Significant Financial Interests.
    1. Investigators and Directors are required to disclose all "Significant Financial Interests" (as defined below) of the Investigator/Director and/or the Investigator/Director's spouse (registered domestic partner) and dependent children. The University's Conflicts Officer (CO) or Financial Conflicts of Interest Committee will review disclosures of Significant Financial Interest and determine whether any constitute a "Financial Conflict of Interest" (FCOI). An FCOI is a Significant Financial Interest that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, negotiation, contracting or reporting of an externally sponsored activity.
    2. Given the complexity of financial and non-financial relationships, Significant Interest disclosures will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the disclosure constitutes an FCOI, and if so, to determine an appropriate action.
    3. Significant Financial Interests may not require FCOI Committee review, and may be handled administratively, if the conflict does not directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, negotiating, contracting or reporting of an externally sponsored activity, does not invoice students or human research subjects, or does not involve payment for personal services in excess of $5,000 in a 12-month period. However, the Vuce President of Research, or his/her designee, reserves the right to require FCOI Committee review.
  2. Significant Financial Interest.
    1. Definition. A "Significant Financial" Interest means one or more of the following interests, if it reasonably appears to be related to the Investigator/Director's institutional responsibilities, including research, teaching or service to the University.
      1. With regard to any publicly traded entity, a Significant Financial Interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure and the value of any equity interest in the entity as of the date of the disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000. Remuneration includes any salary and any payment for services not otherwise identified as salary (e.g., consulting fees, honoraria, paid authorship); equity interest includes any stock, stock option, or other ownership interest, as determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable measures of fair market value.
      2. With regard to any non-publicly traded entity, a Significant Financial Interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000, or when the Investigator/Director (or Investigator/Director's spouse or dependent children) owns any equity interest, regardless of dollar value.
      3. With regard to intellectual property rights and interests (e.g., patents and copyrights), upon receipt of income related to such rights and interest. This does no include any royalty income received by the Investigator/Director from Chapman University for intellectual property rights assigned to Chapman by the Investigator/Director pursuant to Chapman's Inventions and Patent policy.
      4. Any occurrence of reimbursed or sponsored travel related to your institutional responsibilities must also be disclosed, including instruction, research or service to Chapman University, with the exception of any travel reimbursed or sponsored by a federal, state or local government agency, an institution of higher education, an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research center affiliated with an institution or higher education. Travel that is reimbursed by Chapman University from an sponsored fund account whose sponsor is an entity that is not one of those exempt entitities shall be treated as a Significant Financial Interest. The Investigator/Director must disclosure the purpose of the trip, the identity of the sponsor and/or organizer, the destination and its duration within 30 days of travel. Additional information, including the estimated cost of travel, may be requested by the CO and must be furnished upon request.
      5. Payment for services. Any and all salaries and other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees, honoraria, study design, management position, independent contractor, service on advisory committees or review panels of for-profit entities, board membership of for-profit entities, seminars, lectures or teaching engagements for for-profit entities), when totaled together exceed $5,000 during the previous twelve months or are expected to exceed $5,000 over the next twelve months.
    2. Exclusions. The term "Significant Financial Interest" does not include: a) salary, royalties, or other remuneration from Chapman University; b) income from investment vehicles such as mutual funds or retirement accounts, as long as the Investigator/Director does not directly control the investment decisions made in these vehicles; c) income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by government agencies, institutions of higher education, academic teaching hospitals, medical centers, or research institutes affiliated with institutions of higher education; d) income from service on advisory committees or review panels for government agencies, institutions of higher education, academic teaching hospitals, medical centers, or research institutes affiliated with institutions of higher education.
  3. Timing of Required Disclosures
    1. Investigator/Directors must provide all required financial disclosures through the submission of a completed FCOI Disclosure Form:
      1. On an annul basis, as specified by the Office of Research;
      2. At any point when the investigator and/or research personnel establish a new outside relationship or change an existing relationship that creates a potential conflict under this policy.
    2. In addition, Investigator/Directors must update those financial disclosures:
      1. At the time of sponsored activity proposal submission;
      2. Within thirty (30) days of discovering or acquiring (e.g., through purchase, marriage or inheritance) any new Significant Financial Interest;
      3. when engaging in activities requiring disclosure.
  4. Review of Financial Disclosures.The following process shall apply to financial disclosures submitted by Investigator/Directors.
    1. Determination of Financial Conflicts of Interest. The CO or FCOI Committee will review each disclosed Significant Financial Interest to determine whether it could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, negotiating, contracting or reporting of an externally sponsored activity. If an FCOI exists, then the FCOI Committee, or the CO in consultation with the FCOI Committee, will determine what conditions or restrictions, if any should be imposed by the University to manage, reduce, or eliminate such conflict of interest.
    2. Management of Financial Conflicts of Interest
      1. If the CO or FCOI Committee determines that the Significant Financial Interest constitutes an FCOI, then the FCOI Committee will review the research, the financial interests in question, and the areas of conflict, and recommend a strategy to the CO for the management of the Financial Conflict of Interest with a combination of elements it deems most conducive to the continued objective pursuit of research.
      2. The CO will consult with the Investigator/Director on the strategy recommended by the FCOI Committee and will present a management plan to the Investigator/Director implementing the strategy.
      3. The management plan may include conditions or restrictions to manage, reduce, or eliminate Financial Conflicts or Interest, including but are not limited to: (i) monitoring of research by independent reviewers; (ii) modification of the research plan; (iii) disqualification from participation in the portion of the externally sponsored activity that would be affected by Significant Financial Interests; (iv) divesture of Significant Financial Interests; (v) severance of relationships that create conflicts ; or (vi) public disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interest
      4. The Investigator/Director must agree to the management plan before the research can proceed. If the CO and the Investigator/Director cannot agree upon a management plan, then the relevant regulatory bodies and funding agencies will be notified.
      5. The management plan is subject to final approval by the Vice President for Research. All management plans require monitoring by the CO, beginning six (6) months after the fully approved management plan is completed, and on a recurring schedule every six (6) months until such time as it is determined by the FCOI Committee, or the CO in consultation with the FCOI Committee, that the identified FCOI no longer exists.
    3. Reporting of Financial Conflicts of Interest.
      1. Sponsoring agency. Significant Financial Interest that are determined by the CO/FCOI Committee to be Financial Conflicts of Interest
      2. Public request. As required by PHS regulations, information on the nature of such Conflicts of Interest will be made available to members of the public by the CO in response to inquiries specifying the investigator name and the research project in question within 5 business days of receipt of such requests.
  5. Enforcement. The University will use appropriate mechanisms for enforcement of this policy, which shall provide for sanctions where appropriate. Disciplinary proceedings initiated in connection with this policy shall be conducted in accordance with the Chapman University Faculty Handbook, the Chapman University Staff Handbook or the Student Code of Conduct, as appropriate. All relevant regulatory bodies and funding agencies will be promptly informed of disciplinary.
  6. Records. The University will maintain records of all financial interest disclosures and of all actions taken to resolve Financial Conflicts of Interest for at least three (3) years beyond the termination or completion of the grant or contract to which they relate, or until the resolution of any governmental action or litigation involving those records, whichever is longer.
  7. Training.
    1. Investigators on NIH/PHS-funded projects. Each Investigator (including senior/key personnel) on projects funded by or proposed to NIH or other Public Health Service (PHS) affiliated agencies must complete training on the Investigator's responsibilities regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure of Significant Financial Interests via CITI.
    2. New or previously unfunded Investigators. New and/or previously unfunded Investigators who notify the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects Administration of their intent to submit a research proposal to NIH or another PHS-affiliated agency will be required to complete training (and make the disclosures described above) prior to submission of their proposal.
    3. Investigators/Directors on non-NIH/PHS projects, or research programs. For Investigators/Directors sponsored by or seeking funding from NSF and/or other federal agencies, as well as any Investigators/Directors initiating research sponsored by a private, for-profit entity, the activities are optional but strongly recommended.
    4. Repeat training. Renewal training of active NIH/PHS-funded Investigators will be repeated every four years, and (i) on any occasion when Chapman University the training requirements, and (ii) when the University determines that the Investigator is found to be noncompliant with this policy or any management plan related to an identified FCOI.
  8. University’s Disclosure Statement. The University’s Disclosure Statement must be completed by all senior personnel who are submitting proposals to a federal sponsor. The certification page of a proposal cannot be signed until forms for all Investigator/Directors are submitted to the CO. By signing this form the applicant certifies that he/she has read this and a) does not have potential Financial Conflicts of Interest (“I certify that I have read the Financial Disclosure policy which is effective for all federal proposals submitted through the University. I certify to the best of my knowledge that neither I nor my spouse, or dependents hold any significant financial interest that would reasonably appear to be related to my research, teaching and service responsibilities to Chapman University”) or b) does have potential conflicts (“I have the following relationships, affiliations, activities, or interests (financial or otherwise) which constitute potential conflicts under the Chapman University Conflict of Interest Policy”). In either case, the applicant also declares that he/she will notify the CO of any change or discovery requiring modification of the above statement.
  9. Subrecipients. The University is responsible for ensuring all subrecipients’ compliance with the applicable federal regulations regarding Financial Conflicts of Interest. To this end, the University shall enter a written agreement with each subrecipient that shall specify whether this policy, or the applicable policy of the subrecipient’s institution, will apply to subrecipient Investigators. Said agreement will specify the timing for reporting of FCOIs by subrecipients to Chapman University to enable the timely review and reporting of such FCOIs in compliance with funding agency requirements.

For additional information regarding the identification, disclosure and reporting of financial conflicts of interest on federal PHS grants and contracts, please see National Institutes of Health’s guidelines and frequently asked questions.

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office:  Office of Research

Contact information for questions about this policy:  Michael Briggs, Director of Research Integrity

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

 https://www.chapman.edu/research/policies-and-guidance/index.aspx

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

Senior Staff member submitting the policy: Tom Piechota, VP for Research

[Signed]
Daniele C. Stuppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: July 2, 2019

+ - Export Control Policy

Policy for Chapman University faculty, staff, student employees, and courtesy affiliates who work with, or have access to, export-controlled technical data, items, information, materials or equipment.

POLICY STATEMENT

The University is committed to supporting research and complying with U.S. export controls. No University faculty, staff, or student may engage in any activity, or commit the University to engage in any activity, that violates U.S. export control laws and regulations. This Policy applies to Chapman University faculty, staff, student employees and courtesy affiliates who work with, or have access to, export-controlled technical data, items, information, materials or equipment.

REASON FOR THE POLICY

Several federal agencies have implemented export control regulations that may relate to research conducted at Chapman University.  The most common export control regulations affecting university research and scholarly activities are described below:

A. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) 


The US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), administers and enforces the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774), or “EAR,” which regulate the export of “dual-use” items listed on the Commerce Control List. These items include goods and related technology, including technical data and technical assistance, which are designed for commercial purposes, but which could have military applications, such as computers, aircraft, and pathogens..  BIS uses the term "technology" when referring to information about the goods on the Commerce Control List.

B. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) administers and enforces trade, anti-terrorism, narcotics, human rights and other national security and foreign policy based sanctions prohibiting the provision of anything of value, either tangible or intangible, to sanctioned countries, organizations, or individuals. The OFAC regulations (31 CFR Parts 500-599) provide OFAC with broad authority to block or interdict "prohibited transactions" involving restricted destinations or parties.

C. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 


The US Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers and enforces the “ITAR” regulations (22 CFR Parts 120-130) and is responsible for items and information inherently military in design, purpose, or use. Referred to as "defense articles" and “defense services,” such items are found on the US Munitions List, 22 CFR 121. Spacecraft and satellites, even if not for military use, are on the Munitions List, along with their associated systems and related equipment. Information related to Defense Articles is referred to as "technical data."

Penalties for export control violations are substantial, including significant fines, debarment from participation in federal contracting, loss of export privileges, and in some cases imprisonment.

DEFINITIONS

Export:  An actual shipment or transmission of items, services, or technical data subject to either the EAR or the ITAR out of the United States, or the release of technology or software source code (EAR), or technical data (ITAR), to a non-U.S. person in the United States. Technology, software, or technical data is “released” for export through:

  • Visual inspection by a foreign national of U.S. origin equipment and facilities
  • Oral exchanges of information in the United States or abroad
  • Transfer or shipment via any means (physical or electronic) to a foreign entity
  • Provision of a service, or the application to situations abroad of personal knowledge or technical experience acquired in the United States

Deemed Export:  Release or transmission of information or technology subject to export control to any foreign national in the U.S., including graduate students and training fellows. Such a release of information is considered an export to the foreign national’s home country.

Defense Article:  Any item or technical data designated in the ITAR's United States Munitions List (USML), including any technical data recorded or stored in any physical form, models, mock-ups, or other items that reveal technical data directly relating to a “defense article” listed in the USML.

Defense Services:  Furnishing assistance (including training) anywhere (inside the United States or abroad) to foreign nationals in connection with the design, development, engineering, manufacture, production, assembly, testing, repair, maintenance, modification, operation, demilitarization, destruction, processing, or use of defense articles; or furnishing ITAR-controlled “technical data” to non-US persons anywhere, requires authorization from the State Department. 

Dual-use:  Items that have both commercial and defense application. Items subject to the EAR are often referred to as "dual-use.”

Export Controls: Refers to the scheme of federal laws (EAR, ITAR and OFAC regulations) regulating the shipment or transfer, by whatever means, of controlled items, software, technology, or services to foreign nationals or outside of the U.S.

Export license:  A written authorization provided by the appropriate governing regulatory authority detailing the specific terms and conditions under which export or re-export of export controlled items is allowed. Export licenses can take up to a year to receive.

Fundamental Research:  Basic or applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community, is excluded from export controls.

  • Under the EAR (15 CFR §734.8), university research normally will be considered as fundamental research unless the university or its researchers accept sponsor restrictions on the publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the project or activity. The EAR specifically permits limited prepublication reviews by research sponsors to prevent the inadvertent divulging of proprietary information provided to the researcher by the sponsor or to ensure that publication will not compromise the patent rights of the sponsor.
  • Under the ITAR (22 CFR §120.11(8)), only research at accredited institutions of higher learning in the U.S. can qualify as fundamental. University research will not qualify as fundamental research if: (1) the university or its researchers accept any restrictions on the publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the project or activity; or (2) the research is federally funded and specific access and dissemination controls protecting information resulting from the research have been accepted by the university or the researcher.

    Technology Control Plan (TCP):  A Tool to safeguard ITAR, EAR, and other restricted material. The TCP establishes a security plan and identifies responsible parties.  The TCP must be approved by Vice President for Research before restricted technology can be brought onto campus.

    The TCP can be used to set forth the procedures necessary to protect certain export-controlled materials and technology/technical data from inadvertent transfer and access (oral, visual, electronic, physical, etc.) by unauthorized personnel, including non-U.S. persons. These procedures include physical and information security, procurement, shipping/transporting, personnel screening, training and awareness, and compliance assessment. The TCP can also be used to control the disposition of research materials and technical data when the project is terminated.

POLICY

The University is committed to complying with U.S. export controls. Faculty, staff, and students involved in research and academic projects that are subject to export controls must follow the requirements that are appropriate for the roles they serve.  Examples of export controlled activities are identified on the Research Integrity website. Individuals are responsible for reviewing the materials on the University's Research Integrity website and consulting Office of Research when export controls apply. No University faculty, staff, or student may engage in any activity, or commit the University to engage in any activity, that violates U.S. export control laws and regulations. 

Most research conducted at Chapman University falls under the definition of fundamental research. The conduct, products, and results of fundamental research conducted at U.S. institutions of higher education are generally excluded from federal “deemed export” controls in accordance with National Security Decision Directive 189 (commonly known as the “fundamental research exclusion”). Research conducted in foreign locations or with publication restrictions does not fall under the fundamental research exclusion.

EXPORT CONTROL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Chapman University employees working on an export controlled projects are required to successfully complete export control training. The University Office of Research is responsible for export control training content and for maintaining training records. Please see the Export Control website for additional information or questions regarding export control training requirements.

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office: Office of Research – Research Integrity
Contact information for questions about this policy:  Thomas Piechota, Vice President for Research

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

https://www.chapman.edu/research/integrity/export-controls/index.aspx

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

Senior Staff member submitting the policy:  Tom Piechota, Vice President for Research
Date approved: July 2, 2019

[Signed]
Daniele C. Stuppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: July 2, 2019

RELATED MATERIALS

Temporary Export Certification (TMP)- for international shipment or hand-carry of an export control-listed tangible item or items returning to the US within 12 months (including Chapman owned laptops, electronic devices, data storage devices, etc)

For a detailed description of all export control related internal processes and guidance, please contact the Office of Research or refer to the Export Control Compliance Website: https://www.chapman.edu/research/integrity/export-controls/index.aspx

+ - Combating Trafficking Policy

Chapman University's policy and notice regarding the U.S. government's policy prohibiting human trafficking, sex trafficking, forced labor, and trafficking-related activities.

POLICY STATEMENT

The U.S. government has adopted a policy prohibiting human trafficking, sex trafficking, forced labor, and trafficking-related activities. As a recipient of federal funds from grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts (collectively “awards”), Chapman University is obligated to inform its employees, agents, independent contractors and subrecipients performing awards, regarding the U.S. government’s policy. Chapman University opposes human trafficking, sex trafficking, and forced labor, which are inherently harmful and contrary to Chapman University’s core values and which may violate applicable foreign, U.S., state, and/or local laws.

REASON FOR THE POLICY

As a recipient of federal awards, Chapman University is obligated to inform its employees, agents, independent contractors and subrecipients performing awards, regarding the U.S. government’s policy.

POLICY

Human Trafficking (or “trafficking in persons” as used in the U.S. government policy) includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of persons through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. It also includes sex trafficking, and inducing a commercial sex act by force, fraud or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform a commercial sex act is under 18 years old. (Definitions of other relevant terms used in the policy are set forth in the U.S. government’s regulations implementing its policy, available at 2 CFR §175.15 for grants and cooperative agreements and 48 CFR §52.222-50 for federally funded contracts).

Chapman University, its employees, agents, independent contractors, and subrecipients of federal funds (and their respective employees), are prohibited from the following:

  • Engaging in human trafficking or sex trafficking, or procuring commercial sex acts, during the award period;
  • Using forced labor to perform the award;
  • Destroying, concealing, confiscating, or otherwise denying access to an individual’s identity or immigration documents;
  • Using misleading or fraudulent practices about the recruitment process for work on a project outside the U.S., such as failing to disclose, in a format and language accessible to the potential worker, key terms and conditions of the engagement, such as wages and fringe benefits, work location, living conditions, housing costs, and any hazardous nature of the work;
  • Using recruiters that do not comply with local labor laws in the countries in which recruiting takes place;
  • Charging recruitment fees to the individuals recruited to work on the award;
  • Providing or arranging housing that fails to meet host country housing and safety standards;
  • If required by law or contract, failing to provide an employment contract, recruitment agreement, or similar work paper in writing in the employee’s native language prior to the employee departing from his or her country of origin to work on the contract in another country; and
  • Under certain circumstances, failing to supply return transportation, or payment for return transportation, at the conclusion of the work, if the worker is not a national of the country in which the work occurs and was brought into the country to work on the federal award.

REPORTING RESOURCES

Always contact 911 or local law enforcement if you or someone else is in immediate danger. In addition, all Chapman University employees, agents and independent contractors must notify one of the following, if they become aware of any credible information alleging human trafficking, sex trafficking, forced labor, or other violations of the policy:

Ethics Anonymous Reporting Hotline:
Office of Research - Research Integrity:
(714) 628-7201
Chapman University prohibits retaliation against an individual who makes a good faith report of suspected wrongful conduct pursuant to this policy and notice

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Individuals may contact the Global Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-844-888-FREE or help@befree.org. To read more about the U.S. government policy applicable to individuals working on grants and cooperative agreements, please review 22 USC §7104(g) and 2 CFR §175.15. To read more about the U.S. government policy applicable to individuals working on a federal contract, please review 48 CFR 52.222-50.

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office(s):  Human Resources, Research, Institutional Compliance, Legal Affairs  

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

https://www.chapman.edu/campus-services/legal-affairs/policy/index.aspx

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

[Signed]
Daniele C. Struppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: July 2, 2019

Federal Research Policies


Toggle Section

+ - Uniform Guidance

The Uniform Guidance Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) annual edition is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government produced by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Publishing Office.

View the full Uniform Guidance Code 2 CFR 200 guide.

For a specific section related to Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), follow the links below.

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS:

  • 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart C - Pre-Federal Award Requirements and Contents of Federal Awards 200.200 - 200.211
  • 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart D - Post-Federal Award Requirements 200.300 - 200.345

COST PRINCIPLES:

AUDIT REQUIREMENTS:

Grants.gov