» Office of Research Policies and Guidance

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

Policy for the administration of Animal Per Diems associated with managing the operations of animal research facilities.

POLICY STATEMENT

In general, the animal care per diem covers food, bedding, housing, husbandry, veterinary support, the purchase and maintenance of central vivarium equipment, and special services. The University establishes per diem rates using the principles outlined in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cost Analysis and Rate Setting Manual for Animal Research Facilities (PDF). Various specialized training and services are available to University researchers, for which an additional charge may apply. Animal care rates should be built into sponsored research awards when practicable, otherwise, costs must be covered through other allowable sources.

REASON FOR THE POLICY

Historically, Chapman University has covered all costs associated with operating the animal research facilities to ease the financial burden on researchers. Going forward, researchers wil be required to cover a portion of these costs. Per diem and specialty service rates represent only a fraction of the total costs of operating the facility and caring for animals, with the University covering the remaining costs.

To recover a portion of the costs for animal care, per diem rates for various species are charged.

POLICY

Setting Per Diem Cost Rates
Per diem rates are established by the Office of Research and published on an annual basis prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. The fiscal year is defined as the period from June 1 - May 31. A cost analysis study will be performed annually to determine the appropriate per diem rates, and if necessary, an updated rate sheet wil be published including the rate for the current year, and estimate rates for future years, to allow Principal Investigators to budget those costs. The University wil subsidize some of the costs of operation to maintain the per diem rates as low as reasonably possible.

Per diems wil be charged for each day, or fraction of a day, that a cage or animal is within the vivarium. Per diems wil not be pro-rated. Cage and animal census counting wil be based on Vivarium policies and standard practices. All standard care details are detailed in the Chapman University Animal Care and Use Program Handbook. Per diems apply to all animal care facilities with Office of Research oversight. Principal Investigators who maintain their own animal research facilities and spaces (e.g., non-rodent species) are responsible for all costs associated with maintaining and operating their space(s).

RESPONSIBILITIES

The Institutional Official, Vice President for Research, and Office of Research have the authority to implement per diem charges as described above, including communicating and distributing any changes to the approved policy and significant changes to the per diem rate sheet.

The Vivarium Manager - Implement the per diems and provide billing information and invoices to Financial Services for journal transfers. The Vivarium Manager is responsible for performing
regular analysis and providing data as requested to the Office of Research and Financial Services for approval of per diem rates (typically on an annual basis).

The Principal Investigator - Pays costs associated with their projects as described above, and provides a sponsored account or internal fund number to the Vivarium Manager for billing purposes. The Principal Investigator allocates expenses to the appropriate project. If the animal research project is covered by more than one fund, the Principal Investigator is responsible for the proper allocation of costs to the fund through the Vivarium Management systems. If no account number is provided, the Office of Research has the authority to impose space allocation restrictions on the research project, including preventing space allocation depending on the space availability and other project demands. Researchers are always responsible for experimental monitoring as outlined in their approved protocols.

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office: Office of Research

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

Senior Staf member submiting the policy: Dr. Martina Nieswandt

Date approved: September 12, 2023

[Signed]
Daniele C. Struppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: September 12, 2023

RELATED MATERIALS

NIH Cost Analysis and Rate Setting Manual for Animal Research Facilities

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:

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

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

[Signed]
Daniele C. Struppa
President, Chapman University

PUBLICATION DATES

Effective: July 2, 2019

POLICY

A conflict of interest in research refers to situations in which a financial or other commitment may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, a researcher’s professional judgment in the design, conduct, or reporting of research. A conflict of interest depends on the situation, not the individual's character or actions.

The welfare and safety of research participants are paramount. All conflicts must be eliminated or managed to ensure that the researcher’s interest does not compromise the welfare of participants or the integrity of the data. A conflict management plan, approved by the Conflict of Interest Committee, with terms and conditions appropriate to the conflict, must be implemented to ensure the integrity of Chapman research, appropriate protections for participants, and compliance with University policies.

 Chapman has instituted a rebuttable presumption that research personnel involved in the oversight, design, participant recruitment, informed consent process, data analysis, or reporting of results for a human research protocol cannot have an outside financial interest in an entity whose interest could be affected by the research. In other words, the default position is that participation in human research by financially conflicted research personnel is not allowed. However, there may be compelling circumstances in which conflicted research personnel would be permitted to be involved in the study. In these cases, the management strategies for the involvement of conflicted researchers must be carefully adjusted to the level of anticipated risk to the study participants and the integrity of the data.  The rebuttable presumption does not apply to intellectual property that has not yet been commercialized or where commercialization is not imminent.

Disclosure of Outside Activities

As part of a research study, all Chapman researchers must identify any outside interest (paid or unpaid) for themselves, their spouse/domestic partner, or their dependent children (“close family members”) that may be related to the proposed research conducted at Chapman or using Chapman resources (i.e., funding, personnel, students, or facilities).  Members of the study team are responsible for proactively disclosing to the IRB any new outside relationships that may have an impact on the study until data analysis is complete and the study is closed with the IRB.

Examples of conflicts include but are not limited to:

• The project results could be relevant to the development, manufacturing, or improvement of products or services of the entity in which the researcher or their close family member has a financial interest.
• The project results could validate a treatment approach that is the same or similar or competitive to the approach developed or offered by the entity in which the researcher or their close family member volunteers consulting time (i.e., has an unpaid commitment).
  
  The researcher or their close family member is an officer of a company manufacturing, commercializing, or licensing a device, procedure, or other product used in the study.
• The researcher or their close family member has a financial interest in an entity that funds or participates in the project.
  
  The researcher or their close family member has an unpaid outside relationship with the entity donating research data or other materials that are the focus of the research project.
• The study is self-funded by a researcher or their close family member.
  
  The study focuses on the efficacy of a device, product, or material developed by a researcher or a close family member and the results of the study will be used to launch a new company.

The IRB will then evaluate whether the management plan is sufficient to protect the rights and welfare of the participants. If the study proceeds, the IRB will specify the acceptable language for the informed consent documents.  If the IRB deems the management plan insufficient to protect the rights of the participants, the matter will be referred back to the Conflict of Interest Committee and the researcher.

 

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

• 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

Works Otherwise Subject to Contractual Obligations

Syllabi and Courseware

License to University

Student Purchases

Reconveyance of Copyright to Creator

Licensing by University

Administration of Policy

Use of the University Name in Copyright Notices

Explanation of Terms

1. Copyrightable Works

2. Scope of Copyright Protection

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

Background: What are Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs?

Also known as “indirect costs” or “overhead,” F&A costs are facilities and administrative expenses associated with carrying out sponsored projects that cannot be specifically identified with a particular sponsored program or directly charged to it.  Examples of “facilities” expenses include research equipment, building depreciation, start-up packages, and utilities, while “administrative” costs include a portion of many of the administrative offices that support research, such as the Office of Research, Finance, the Libraries, IS&T, Legal Affairs, and Human Resources.  For more information on how F&A costs are calculated by the federal government, see the COGR F&A Explainer video.

How Does Chapman Collect F&A Costs From Sponsors?

The University incurs these expenses upfront and is reimbursed for a portion by the sponsor. The federal government determines the F&A rate in response to an application from the University. This is then referred to as our Federally negotiated rate.

Chapman’s Contributions to Research

F&A rates only partially cover actual F&A costs associated with supporting research due to structural limitations in the federal formulae. As a result, Chapman and most other research institutions routinely subsidize research-related costs not charged to awards (e.g., faculty academic year salaries, start-up costs, internal grants, buildings, equipment, etc.). Table 1 from the NSF Higher Education Research and Development Expenditures survey summarizes research expenditures from 2010-2021 and shows that the proportion of research funding provided through institutional funds, on average, is about 20-25% of the institution’s total research expenditures.  Chapman’s proportion is significantly higher at about 39% of research expenditures.

Table 1

Charging F&A Costs to Sponsored Projects

 As the PI spends award money for direct project-related expenses, F&A is collected from the sponsor at the rate budgeted in the project. The Office of Research will apply the negotiated F&A rate to each proposal and award per the award terms.

 A reduced F&A rate will be accepted if a sponsor (usually a Foundation or other non-profit organization) has an established F&A rate that is lower than Chapman’s federally negotiated rate. The Office of Research may assist in communicating with the sponsor to obtain documentation of an established rate that is not published. If the sponsor does not have an established rate, the University’s negotiated rate will be applied.

Distribution of F&A Recovery

To further stimulate research in the units that support the projects, 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.

When F&A recovery is received or accrued from the sponsored based on billings, portions will be properly transferred into their respective unrestricted accounts.  The Office of Research will create an account under the unrestricted fund as a University-designated unrestricted account for each distribution area.  Unspent funds will carry forward from fiscal year to fiscal year. 

A. Institutes and Centers:

For approved centers within schools/colleges and institutes reporting to the Provost, the allocation will be distributed from the academic dean portion as follows:

B. Specification of Appropriate College/School

 Where grants are managed through a center or institute, the college or school where the main Principal Investigator (PI) holds their faculty appointment will receive the dean portion (10%) of the F&A. If a PI is not affiliated with a college or school, then the dean portion will remain with the center or institute.

Use of F&A Funds and Allowable Costs

The Office of Research will create an individual project code to assist the PI in tracking their F&A research fund allocation.  If the PI leaves the University, these allocated funds will be forfeited and returned to the F&A account of the Vice President for Research.

The Dean’s allocation will be used under the discretion of the Dean and as described under the Allowable Uses section below. These funds may be used to assist with cost-sharing (also known as matching), seed funding for new initiatives, and adjunct instruction costs when PIs require course reduction to complete a sponsored research project.  When using these funds for cost-sharing, deans should follow procedures issued by the Financial Services and the Office of Research to ensure that the cost-sharing expenditures are adequately 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 for seed research projects, research travel, other activities, or other costs described below.

C. 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 or institute, costs associated with general operations of the center or institute, and potentially any bridge funding of research personnel.

D. Office of Research

The Office of Research allocation will be used to support and advance research across campus and support central administrative expenses for sponsored programs and compliance.  

E. Allowable Use of F&A Funds:

F&A recovery funds must be used for research and scholarly and creative activities. They must adhere to all University policies and procedures and all applicable laws and regulations when using these funds.  Examples of allowable costs include:

• Operations support: Clerical salaries, postage, phones, etc., needed to manage the project but cannot be charged to the project (e.g., due to insufficient funding or the sponsor prohibits those charges).

• To cover overdrafts on sponsored awards.
• 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 (e.g., when they cannot be supported on awards), chemical supplies, travel for grant purposes, or other types of support approved but not fully funded by the sponsor.
• Items such as academic and professional development conferences, meeting expenses, food (excluding alcohol), promotional items, and office supplies 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 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).

•  F&A Funds may NOT be used for:

  • Paying bonuses or other forms of extra compensation for Chapman faculty or other employees.
  • Alcoholic beverages.
  • Other expenses that do not directly benefit Chapman’s research or creative activity, such as entertainment or personal expenses, etc.

   

  Revised: April 2023

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:  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

POLICY STATEMENT

Chapman University fosters a research environment that promotes respect for the rights, safety, and welfare of individuals recruited for or participating in research conducted by members of the University. 

REASON FOR THE POLICY

This policy exists to responsibly govern human subjects research at Chapman University. 

POLICY

All employees and students of the University who are conducting human subject research are required to comply with Chapman requirements, procedures, and protocols of the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). The HRPP includes mechanisms to establish, monitor, evaluate and continually improve the protection of human research participants, educate investigators and research staff about their ethical responsibility to protect research participants, and, when appropriate, intervene in research and respond to concerns of research participants. 

The University's HRPP is established under and in accordance with the laws, regulations, and principles listed below regarding the protection of human subjects. The University and its employees and students will adhere to these laws, regulations, and principles concerning human subject research: 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy and regulations at 45 CFR part 46, also known as the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or the "Common Rule";

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations related to clinical trials and human subject protections at 21 CFR Parts 51 and 56 (collectively referred to in this document as the "FDA Regulations"); 

The principles (i.e., respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) set forth in the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (collectively referred to in this document as the “Belmont Report”);

Other federal regulations implementing the Common Rule that apply when carrying out studies sponsored by those agencies; and

All state and local laws and regulations governing human subject research, including California’s requirements for the protection of human subjects as provided in the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, CA Health and Safety Code, Section 24170- 24179.5.

Federal and state regulations governing the administration of controlled substances or regulated devices.

The Institutional Official

The President of Chapman University has the power and authority to designate an individual within the University to serve as the Institutional Official (IO), who is legally authorized to act for the University, obligates Chapman to the terms of the Federal Wide Assurance, and is responsible for carrying out the HRPP. The person designated as the IO must meet qualifications including being an employee of the University, being authorized to act and speak for the University as a whole, and ensuring that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) will effectively fulfill its research oversight function. The President has designated the Vice President for Research as the IO, and the Chapman IRB as the body within the University that has jurisdiction over all human subject research conducted at or in connection with the University.

The HRPP operates under the guidance and direction of the IO and the IRB and is administered through and by the Office of Research.

IRB Authority

The IRB is responsible for conducting initial and continuing reviews and providing oversight for all research activities involving the use of human subjects performed by agents or employees and students of the University, regardless of the funding source for the study. No researcher may conduct human subject research without the approval of the Chapman IRB or an outside IRB that Chapman agrees to rely upon.

The IRB has authority to grant approval for studies involving human subjects, to require modifications to secure approval, to disapprove research, to suspend or terminate approval pursuant to these policies, to observe or have a third party observe consent processes or the conduct of research, or to grant an exemption pursuant to this policy. Studies involving human subjects that have been approved by an IRB may be subject to further review by the University (e.g., when data safety plans are needed, controlled substances or regulated devices are used, or where there is a potential conflict of interest). The President or the IO may disapprove a protocol that the IRB has approved; however, neither may approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.

Setting IRB Policy

The IRB Chair and IRB committee share authority over IRB policy in collaboration with the IO. Any member of the IRB may at any time suggest revisions to the IRB policy through the IRB Chair. It is also expected that the IRB policies will be amended when changes in federal regulations occur. The IRB Chair may revise IRB policy in consultation with the IO as needed.

This HRPP policy may only be revised upon recommendation by the IO and with the approval of the President, in accordance with Chapman’s Policy Development and Publication Policy.

Evaluation of Risk by the IRB

The IRB is responsible for evaluating the potential risks of a study and weighing the probability of the risk occurring and the magnitude of harm that may result. The IRB will not approve research where the risks are judged unreasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits.

The IRB is also responsible for evaluating Chapman’s ability to protect the human subject's safety, rights, and welfare for studies that involve elevated or significant risk. At this time, because Chapman does not have the appropriate medical or hospital facilities, in vivo human testing of drugs and biologics cannot be conducted at the Orange or Rinker campuses. Similarly, studies using FDA-regulated devices deemed by the FDA or the Chapman IRB to be of significant risk will not be undertaken at Chapman. Such studies may only be conducted off-site with a collaborator at a medical institution with adequate facilities, significant clinical trial experience, and appropriate medical expertise, or by contracting the services of a professional clinical research organization. Chapman must enter into a formal agreement with the IRB of the clinical research organization or collaborating medical institution, agreeing to rely on the external organization’s or institution’s IRB review of the protocol. This policy will be reviewed from time to time and revised accordingly based on Chapman’s ability to support these studies on campus.

Oversight by the IRB

• Human subject research that is subject to the authority of the Chapman IRB includes:
• Human subjects research conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent for Chapman in connection with their institutional responsibilities;
• Human subject research conducted by Chapman students;
• Human subject research conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent of Chapman using any property or facility of the University or using any University’s name or resources to contact or identify human subjects; and
• Human subject research was conducted at the Orange or Rinker campuses by a non-Chapman employee or agent.

Institutions and individuals who are not employees or students of Chapman may not rely upon the Chapman IRB unless there is a written agreement including compliance with the Chapman IRB policies and procedures, signed by an authorized official of Chapman.

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY

Name of Office: Office of Research

Contact information for questions about this policy: (714) 628-2805

WEBSITE FOR THIS POLICY

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

WHO APPROVED THIS POLICY

Senior Staff Member submitting the policy: Acting Vice President for Research, Janeen Hill

Date approved by President: Approved by President Daniele Struppa on January 24, 2022

PUBLICATION DATE

Effective: 1/24/2022

RELATED MATERIALS

See the Office of Research, Human Research Protection Program website for more information on carrying out human subject research at Chapman. Chapman’s Policy Development and Publication 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 Assessment: 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.

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

• 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

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

1. Invention Disclosures

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:

5. Administration of Policy

EXPLANATION OF TERMS

1. PATENT

2. PATENTABILITY

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

Policy

Chapman must consider an individual to be Principal Investigator (PI) eligible based on the criteria below before they may lead a sponsored project, Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), or Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) study. This Policy sets forth the eligibility requirements for a 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 (PI) is responsible for the intellectual direction, design, scientific or technical conduct, administrative conduct, fiscal management, and reporting of a research, training, or public service project. In short, the PI is responsible for all aspects of a project. As such, the University recognizes one individual as the PI, and they must personally participate in the project to a significant degree and provide oversight on project activities. In addition, all PIs must follow the responsibilities set forth by the sponsor and the University when managing sponsored projects or performing work overseen by regulatory compliance committees.

Who can be a Principal Investigator?

• Faculty with Full-time (>30 hours) status, including tenure track, tenured, research, and clinical
• Senior Leadership (e.g., Vice Presidents)
• Librarians, Associate Librarians, Assistant Librarians
• Provost
• Academic Professionals in the Research Scientist series (Sr. Research Scientist, Research Scientist)

Who can be a Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI)?

Persons eligible for designation as PI are also eligible to be designated as Co-PIs. 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.

Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars

Grants and Fellowship – Graduate students and postdoctoral associates may be named as the PI on external fellowship or traineeship applications for their support, with the approval of the Faculty Advisor and Dean. In such cases, the University may continue to name the Faculty Advisor on internal records. Colleges/schools should define their process for approving such requests. Electronic grant submissions routed to the Office of Research (e.g., through Cayuse) will be considered approved by the Dean. Criteria for requesting approval for other University personnel are described below. In the event of an apparent conflict between the policies of the University and the funding agency, the more restrictive policy shall be followed.

Studies Involving Human or Animal Subjects – Graduate students performing studies in a class or working on their dissertation project and postdoctoral scholars leading projects involving human or animal subjects may submit studies for their independent work with the approval of their Faculty Advisor and Dean to the IRB or IACUC. In such cases, the faculty advisor will be asked to accept responsibility for the mentee's research and further attest that they are fully aware of all the procedures to be followed, will monitor the study, and will notify the relevant committee of any significant problems or changes. Colleges/schools should define their process for such requests. Electronic study submissions routed to the Office of Research (e.g., through Cayuse) will be considered approved by the Dean. The IACUC and IRB encourage the faculty advisor to at least list undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral scholars as Co-Is on projects they lead wherever possible so they can learn the responsibilities and receive the appropriate credit for their work.

Who Needs to Request Approval for Principal Investigator Status?

The following individuals may request approval for PI status:

• Faculty with visiting appointments of less than the term of the grant if awarded.
• Faculty with Emeritus status.
• Presidential Fellows.
• All other full-time administrators.
• Affiliated Scholars with non-employee positions on courtesy appointments.
• Faculty with full-time positions who are identified as instructional faculty.
• Appointees salaried at less than full-time status, including part-time lecturers.
• Postdoctoral scholars and graduate students (except as described above).
• Research Associates.

Appointments That Are Non-Eligible for PI Status

• Others with University visitor appointments.
• Non-Chapman personnel.
• Graduate Students (except as described above).
• Research Assistants (except as described above).
• Undergraduate Students (except as described above).

How to Request an Exception for PI Status?

The individual must have the necessary experience and independence to compete for their sponsored program and to administer the project. In addition, they must have previous experience with similar research projects and the ability to comply with all the requirements of the award or project. Individuals must also have access to the appropriate personnel, facilities, and other resources to carry out the project. Requests for exceptions for such individuals must be approved by the Vice President for Research & Graduate Education upon the recommendation of the individual’s Dean, Director, Provost, or Vice President before they may serve in the PI role.

To request an exception to the PI policy, a formal request must be made to the Office of Research and Graduate Education through Formstack at least 21 business days before the proposal deadline and include the following:

• Current Curriculum Vitae
• A copy of their Appointment Term or Faculty Contract
• Summary Statement of the proposed project, including funding agency and program
• Recommendation of Dean, Director, Provost, or Vice President. Recommenders should carefully consider whether the PI requesting an exception has the ability and experience necessary to administer the project if the exception is approved. If department or college/school 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.

Revision History:

November 2023 – Reorganized the sections addressing eligibility for postdoctoral scholars and graduate students under a new heading.

September 2023 – Revised to permit graduate students and postdoctoral associates to be named as PIs on IACUC, IRB, and IBC studies, with their Faculty Advisors and Dean’s approval. Permits graduate students and postdoctoral associates to be named as PI on grant applications for fellowships or traineeships, with the approvals of their Faculty Advisors and Deans. Sets a time limit for PI requests for exceptions three weeks before the proposal deadline.  Clarified that limited-term administrators may be PI with the Dean's approval.  In addition, Deans or Provost must approve the PI status for Emeritus faculty and Presidential Fellows.

December 2016 – Original policy date

Download a PDF of this policy.

The incentive pay program is currently being reviewed. During that time, the program is on hold until further notice for all new requests

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; 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 if all financial obligations have been covered for the project by the sponsor.

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 and fringe 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 comply 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 and fringe to grant/contract funds. The payment may not be made by offsetting salary and fringe 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 the 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 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

     1. Intent to Participate in PI Incentive Program: 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 (in Cayuse SP), mark “Yes” on the “will be included in the Faculty Incentive Pay Program”.

     2. Award and Charging PI Time to Grant: 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.

     3. Incentive Payment: 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.

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 is 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.

Policy Statement
Various sponsoring agencies have formulated data ownership, retention, and access policies. Chapman’s policy supports these federal requirements and, in the absence of any specific regulations, spells out the requirements for data ownership, retention, and access. This policy applies to all sponsored research and researchers, regardless of funding source, if any. For sponsored research, any relevant policies of the sponsor  shall apply in addition to those provided here. Any apparent conflicts of procedures are to be resolved in writing and approved by the Vice President for Research before accepting an award,contract, or other binding agreement. More information can be found in Chapman’s Invention and Patent Policy and the Record Retention Policy and Matrix.

Reason for the Policy
Chapman University supports a wide variety of research and scholarly activities. A fundamental component of many research investigations is the creation and use of data. It is in the interest of the research enterprise at large to make such data available to others to the extent possible and in Chapman’s interest to facilitate these processes and to assist and protect those who conduct research and scholarly activities on behalf of the University.

External Policies and Guidelines
Several federal and non-federal agencies set forth data management, sharing, and retention policies. For example,

Data Definition

Data shall be construed as all recorded information, regardless of medium, and all actual samples or examples, that were created or gathered and could influence or support a research finding or conclusion. Data does not include such items as research papers cited by the researcher, preliminary notes or paper drafts, reviews, related communications, or items already the property of others. This definition is intended to characterize current research norms, not to modify them.

Data Ownership
Chapman University is the owner or joint owner of all data created or collected by its employees or contractors, except when the creation or collection of such data is governed by a written agreement or contract to the contrary, approved in writing by the Vice President for Research. Chapman’s Inventions and Patents Policy and Copyrighted Works Policy policies may also apply.

When another research institution or entity has joint ownership rights to data, agreed in writing before the creation of the data, the data shall be owned jointly as agreed. Each such institution shall have unfettered access rights to the original data. Such an institution not holding or serving as custodian for the original data may copy and own the copy.

When a creator of data ceases to be an employee or contractor of the University, the creator mustarrange with their school or department to leave the data in the physical possession of the owner(s) but will continue to have access rights to the data. Subject to applicable privacy regulations and policies regarding the data and the terms of the sponsored agreement, or other related policies, the creator may take a copy of the data at the creator's expense.

Data Custody
The researcher(s) who created the data typically serve as the custodian of the University's data. Such researchers act on behalf of the University without limiting the University's ownership rights. Data may be stored remotely via cloud storage or other computing methods, assuming that the storage method used is appropriate for the classification of the data (https://www.chapman.edu/campus-services/information-systems/security/data-risk-classification.aspx). The custodian of the data shall take all reasonable steps to protect the data from damage or loss, including damage or loss due to catastrophic events. The owner of the data shall provide storage space and financial support as necessary to maintain the data. The University may elect to serve as custodian of the data (to protect and maintain the data) but may not limit the creator's access to those data.

Principal Investigators will decide what research data should be preserved or dispositioned based on norms set by the scholarly discipline, provided that the requirements of Chapman, the funder, and other related contracts are met. Further, the Principal Investigator for the sponsored project is responsible for meeting the sponsor’s data management and reporting requirements. Chapman will assist Principal Investigators in meeting these requirements, for example, in interpreting the sponsor’s requirements, in assisting with the development of data management plans, and assisting in identifying appropriate data repositories through the Office of Research, the Leatherby Libraries, and Information Services & Technology, and other campus services. To the fullest extent possible, the sponsor shall bear any costs associated with complying with its requirements.

Data Quality
Data shall be maintained in a manner that prevents alteration or that makes all alterations evident. For example, written data should be recorded in a bound notebook with numbered pages, and a copy of the original electronic data should be retrievable. If a datum is revised, the reason for revising it must be documented and dated. Electronic laboratory notebooks can be helpful here. The creator of data should be able to document and defend any modification of the data.

Data Retention
If the data were created as part of a sponsored research project, then the data shall be kept for at least three years after the final report to the sponsor has been submitted or the ending date of the project, whichever is later. The data shall be retained for longer as any applicable policy or written agreement dictates. If more than one minimum retention period is deemed to apply, the data will be retained for the longest of these periods. For example, if the data led to the granting of a patent, then the data shall be kept for the life of the patent and its extensions. In addition, the data shall be retained while any
litigation or legal action, or investigation of allegations regarding it is pending. The data will not be discarded or destroyed when it is known to be in use by other Chapman researchers. Further, research data may not be destroyed while an audit, research misconduct inquiry, investigation, public records request, or legal action involving such research data is pending. See more information about Chapman’s Records Retention Policy and Matrix.

Data Access
Researchers shall endeavor to make their data publicly available as soon as possible and to the extent practicable. Access may be delayed while the correctness of the data is being verified, until an initial publication based on the data appears, or for the minimum period needed to file a patent application, or for any other reasonable need. Data should be released early if a public benefit is likely.

No data may be published or made available in a form that would breach confidentiality. For example, the medical and financial records of an individual are private. The identity of human subjects is also typically held in confidence. Confidential data are to be protected by both the custodian and the owner
of the data. This may include physically securing the data.

Researchers will take steps to make the data public to the greatest extent possible. If the data cannot be made satisfactorily anonymous, it shall not be made public, and the Vice President for Research will be informed of the existence of the data and the reasons that it cannot be made public. The creator of the data must make every reasonable effort to release the data in a useful form. If the veracity of confidential research data is challenged, the creator must cooperate with the Vice President for Research to devise a means to satisfy the challenge. As the owner, the University will defend any challenge with the cooperation of the researcher. All applicable laws and legal protections regarding confidentiality will be obeyed.

Data that is deemed sensitive may require restricted access or other limitations. The owner and custodian of such data will comply with applicable laws.

Applicable non-disclosure agreements must be honored. However, the Office of Research must approve any non-disclosure agreement beforehand. Such contracts shall generally be of limited duration to give a sponsor sufficient time to file a patent application or for other protection.

When a collaboration ends, and data is created during the collaboration, each member of the collaboration shall retain access to that data.

Additionally, researchers must adhere to Chapman’s Privacy Policy with special attention to personal health information and personally identified information. (See related materials below). Questions to privacy@chapman.edu.

Office Responsible for the Policy: The Office of Research, Vice President of Research

Date Approved: May 1, 2023

Summer and Overload Pay for Faculty on Sponsored Activities

Authorship Principles

An important component in upholding the integrity of the research and scholarly enterprise is the assignment of authorship. It serves as an explicit way of assigning responsibility and giving credit for intellectual work. Authorship should be given to those who contribute and participate in substantive ways to scholarly and scientific work, and should honestly and accurately reflect actual contributions. Fair and equitable determination of authorship is important to the reputation, academic promotion, and funding support of the individuals involved, and to the strength and reputation of the authors’ respective institutions.

As early as possible in the research or scholarly process, collaborators should discuss the general requirements for authorship of any manuscript that will report results of joint work. This does not mean deciding who will – or will not – be an author. Rather, the principles guiding authorship decisions should be discussed, potentially with reference to this or similar guidance documents. To prevent misunderstandings, it is recommended that discussions of authorship standards be held openly and frequently within collaborative projects. Agreements should be established between coauthors early in the writing process for each manuscript, and these agreements should be reviewed and revised as needed to reflect changes in the actual contributions of each individual.

Disagreements sometimes arise regarding who should be named as an author of or contributor to intellectual work and the order in which individuals should be listed. Some of these disputes are a result of failed communication and expectation setting. This guidance is meant to serve as a set of standards that are shared by the academic community as a whole, to help facilitate open communication through adherence to common principles. These principles apply to all intellectual products, whether published or prepared for internal use or for broad dissemination.

Applicability

This guidance applies to all faculty, students, postdoctoral researchers, and staff.

Designing an ethical and transparent approach to authorship and publication of research is the responsibility of the principal investigator(s). This guidance document outlines the ethical responsibilities of the investigator(s) and the University resources available to support implementation of the principles outlined herein.

Chapman University acknowledges and appreciates that there are many different standards across fields regarding authorship (e.g., the order in which authors are listed). As a result, each laboratory, department, college and/or school should have conversations and clear guidelines around discipline-specific standards of authorship and, if needed, should supplement these guidelines with a description of their own customary ways of deciding who should be an author and the order in which authors will be listed. If such standards are documented in writing, they should be made available to all collaborators and discussed at the beginning of the collaboration.

Recommendations for Attribution of Authorship

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content. All co-authors should have been directly involved in all four of the following:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published; and
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding norms for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. This guidance is intended to allow for such variation in disciplinary best practices while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Acknowledgements

Individuals who do not meet the requirements for authorship but who have provided a valuable contribution to the work should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication

Recommendations for Implementation

Successful implementation of this guidance relies on a commitment to collegiality and open, frank, consistent communication and expectation-setting throughout the research and scholarly process. Integral to implementation of this guidance is the following:

• Research groups should discuss authorship credit/criteria, presentation of joint work, and future directions of the research as early as practical, and frequently, during the course of their work. This should involve explicit discussion of expectations of continued collaboration if a contributor who would normally be considered an author leaves the project or institution during the conduct of the work. The lead investigator should initiate these discussions; however, any collaborator may raise questions or seek clarity throughout the course of the collaboration. Each lab or group may consider having a written guiding document in place.
• Collaborators are expected to adhere to good laboratory practices, including maintaining a complete laboratory notebook and annotating electronic files, as these practices will aide in identifying and clarifying individuals’ contributions to a project.
• Disposition of collaborative data and research materials should be mutually agreed upon among collaborators as early as practical and in accordance with any data-sharing and retention requirements;
• Laboratories, departments, and educational programs supporting scholarly work at Chapman should include in any procedure manuals this guidance and a description of their own customary ways of deciding who should be an author and the order in which authors are listed. This guidance and customary practices should be included in orientation of new members.
• Discussion of the principles of authorship outlined in this guidance should be integrated into any responsible conduct of research courses taught at Chapman.

Authorship Disputes and Resolution

Conflicts related to authorship may arise at any time during the research or scholarly process, resulting from differing perceptions of one’s contributions and resulting attribution of credit. Chapman University recommends adherence to the following procedures when a dispute arises, unless disagreements are a result of alleged fabrication or falsification of data or plagiarism and, therefore, instead subject to the institution’s Integrity in Research Policy.

1. Resolution of disputes among collaborators through open and collegial discourse and mutual agreement is strongly encouraged. To facilitate this process, any prior decisions or discussions among authors, including verbal or written agreements between coauthors, should be reviewed and considered. This guidance and any documented customary practices in the relevant discipline should be applied, as appropriate. Extending an invitation to a mutually agreed upon party outside the group who is familiar with publication norms in the field to informally serve as a neutral facilitator may ensure that all viewpoints are weighed and considered and objectively applied. It is expected that most disputes will be resolved collegially among collaborators.
2. If the disagreement cannot be resolved among collaborators, input should be sought from a neutral third party, such as the University Ombudsperson or other trusted parties.
   1. Department-level resolution. The collaborators should engage the Department Chair or his/her designee to facilitate a resolution of the dispute acceptable to all parties. This assumes that the Department Chair is not a direct party to the dispute and does not otherwise have a conflict of interest. If multiple departments are involved in the dispute or the Department Chair has a conflict, the parties may opt to engage the University Ombudsperson.
   2. Engagement of the University Ombudsperson. Chapman’s ombudsperson is a resource available to all members of Chapman University and can act as a neutral party to mediate disputes at any point in the process. The ombudsperson is skilled at facilitating conflict resolution and while he/she cannot adjudicate an authorship dispute by taking formal action, he/she may bring together the parties involved to assist them in reaching their own settlement.
   3. Graduate Research Resolution. In the event that a dispute arises regarding graduate student research, the disagreeing party/parties (student(s) and/or faculty member(s)) should request a meeting of all interested persons, with at least five business days' notice, for the purpose of resolving the problem. In the case of disputes between students, the meeting must include at least one faculty member familiar with the research. If the dispute cannot be resolved through this process, or if the proposed solution is unacceptable to the student(s) or the faculty member(s), the disagreeing party/parties may request that the dean of the college or school review the problem and recommend a solution. The dean may appoint a designee to review/recommend, provided the dean’s designee is not personally involved in the dispute. If the problem cannot be resolved at the department or college/school level, or if the dispute involves the dean of the college/school, the dispute should be appealed to the Vice Provost for Graduate Education, which will be the final level of appeal.
   4. Resolution when authors are from multiple institutions: The collaborators should engage a mutually agreed upon neutral party outside the group who is familiar with publication norms in the field to facilitate a resolution.

Resources and Contacts

• This guidance document is based partially on guidelines at Brown University (with permission) “Guidelines on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific Publications”
• The International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides comprehensive instruction on authorship that is not detailed in this guidance document, but can accessed on its website.
• Washburn, J.J. (2008) Encouraging Research Collaboration Through Ethical and Fair Authorship: A Model Policy, Ethics & Behavior, 18:1, 44-58,
• Warrender, J.M. (2016) A Simple Framework for Evaluating Authorial Contributions for Scientific Publications. Sci Eng Ethics 22: 1419.
• Winston, Jr., R. B. (1985). A Suggested Procedure for Determining Order of Authorship in Research Publications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 515-518.
• Chapman University - Office of Research
  • Thomas Piechota, Vice President for Research
  • Michael Briggs, Director of Research Integrity
• Chapman University Faculty Ombudsperson – Dr. Frank Frisch

Need for Guidance

A Core Lab is a facility whose activity supports research at Chapman and is measured based upon a specific quantitative basis. The costs associated with these activities are accounted for separately and charged to the users in proportion to the services rendered. The primary purpose is to provide specific research services to the University community or external users. External lab rates are to be requested for fixed rate laboratory testing only and are not to be established for general core lab facilities use charges.”

Guidance is being established to ensure compliance with federal regulations and Cost Accounting Standards. This includes federal regulatory costing principals established by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2 CFR 200, as well as the Chapman Fiscal Policy.

Establishment and Review of External Rates

Proposed external lab rates must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Research and Financial Services. This is required in advance of use of the external rates and on an annual basis as the activity of the Core Lab continues. Such approval memorandums should be submitted to the Office of Research prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. It should be understood the fixed lab rates may require revision to avoid accumulating either a surplus or a deficit in the core lab account. The external rate should be based on the University’s fiscal year, unless another time period can be justified and the Office of Research has provided approval to deviate. 

External User

An external user is an entity or person with whom the University has no direct affiliation and for which the University has no fiduciary responsibility. The person or entity is external to the University’s mission, but wishes to engage the services of the center because of its unique equipment and/or its faculty/staff expertise.

Rates charged to non-federal external users are not governed by federal cost recovery restrictions. A lab may charge a non-federal external user a premium rate. In fact, the operation should charge non-federal external users a market rate to prevent potential claims of unfair competition. Rates charged to external users who identify themselves as federally funded and provide documentation should be set to recover direct costs plus institutional overhead. Appropriate documentation includes a copy of the federal award approval or similar documentation.

Allowable Direct Costs

All allowable direct costs of a core lab that will be used in establishing user rates should be expended through one individual fund. Allowable costs include:

1. Salaries and Wages
2. Fringe Benefits
3. Supplies and Materials (consumables)
4. Depreciation expense on capital equipment
5. Purchase costs for non-capital equipment
6. Equipment Service Contracts
7. Repairs and Maintenance
8. Communication Fees, Mailings, Other Support Costs

Salaries and wages include faculty and staff who provide services, direct the operation, supervise the staff and provide other administration and support functions. Effort Reports, where required, should agree with salary (including fringe) expenditures charged to a lab account.

Supplies and materials include the supplies that are necessary for the operation of the lab. Office supplies are generally considered indirect costs and treated as unallowable. However, to the extent office supplies/materials are consumed solely for the operation of the lab in deliverance of its services, they may be included as allowable costs of the lab.

If capital equipment is involved in producing the service, depreciation associated with that equipment may be included in the rates. Depreciation must be calculated based on the information in the University’s asset system, including purchase date, purchase cost, any federal contribution (which must be subtracted from the purchase costs) and useful life. The straight-line depreciation method should be used. The full purchase cost or the replacement cost of an asset cannot be the basis for the depreciation cost.

Actual expenses for items such as travel, equipment service contracts, equipment maintenance, or long distance telephone charges incurred specifically for the operation of the lab should be treated as a direct cost of the lab and included in the rate calculation.

Request for Core Lab Rates

The following should be following to establish core lab rates:

• A complete proposal should be developed to justify the need for core lab rates and appropriately justify the rates based on the allowable direct costs noted above
• Proposals should be submitted to the Vice President for Research
• Proposals will be reviewed by the Office of Research and Financial Services
• Once approved, rates must be utilized on a consistent basis as outlined in this Guidance document
• Review of rates should be provided to the Office of Research after the Fiscal Year has closed. Revised rates should be submitted by August 1.

Documentation

It is essential that the lab’s costs and usage base be adequately documented to support the billings. Accordingly, each lab must observe the following practices:

1. Collect and retain supporting documentation related to actual and accrued costs incurred by the lab. Historical cost data is stored in the University’s finance and procurement systems. Cost projection data must be maintained by the lab.
2. Maintain adequate records to support the number of hours or other measure of services and/or materials which form the basis for customer billings. Usage data compiled by the lab usage systems provides adequate documentation.
3. Retain working papers demonstrating rate development.
4. Prepare external invoicing documents on at least a monthly basis.

Receipt of any external payments, not submitted directly to the Financial Services, must be directed to Office of Research upon receipt.

Business Process

The following process should be used to ensure proper charging and tracking of expenses to lab and sponsored project accounts:

• Charge to Lab Account: Any expenses associated with the core lab tests should be charged to the lab account.
• Cost Transfer to Grant Account: Based on lab tracking and confirmation from project PI, lab to complete a Sponsored Activity Cost Transfer Request Form (CTRF) detailing the project, type and number of tests/procedures completed (per approved fixed lab rate) that transfers the cost from Lab Account to an external account
  • Use expense account code Reclass – Fixed Lab Rate
  • Lab to submit completed CTRF to appropriate SPS Contracts & Grants Administrator for review and approval
  • If approved, SPS will provide the signed document to Financial Services to facilitate the cost transfer that will move the appropriate expense amount from the Core Lab Account to the appropriate sponsored project
  • This action increases the balance in the Core Lab budget by removing the expense and decreases the balance in the sponsored project budget by adding the expense
  • Once the cost transfer process has been completed, the expense(s) will be reflected on the sponsored project GL
• Invoice to Sponsor: On a monthly basis, unless outlined otherwise in sponsor agreement/award, Financial Services will generate an invoice based off of the expenses reflected on the project GL
  • Sponsored project invoices are provided to SPS for review and approval
  • If approved, invoices are submitted to sponsor for payment

All Core Lab accounts are zero balanced at the end of the Fiscal Year, so Units are encouraged to management expenses appropriately throughout the year.

Background

It is not uncommon for human research participants to be paid for their participation in research. Payment for participation in studies is not considered a benefit, it is compensation for time, effort and for study-related expenses. It could also be considered a recruitment incentive.

The amount and schedule of all participant payments must be submitted to the Chapman Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the time of initial review. The IRB reviews both the amount of payment and the proposed method and timing of disbursement to assure that they are neither coercive nor present undue influence [45 CFR 46.116, 21 CFR 50.20]. Compensation can be in the form of money, gift certificates, products, or other incentives. In some cases, payments are made to the parents or legal guardians of the participants.

Researchers must not deviate from the amount, type, or timing of compensation without amending their protocol and securing IRB approval.

Responsibilities

Researchers/departments must:

1. Describe Research Participant compensation in their IRB protocol (Subject Compensation section). If it is anticipated that a participant’s payment, as described in the IRB protocol, is going to exceed $599.99 per calendar year, the researcher shall have the participant complete the Acknowledgement of Research Participant Compensation form to ensure that participants are notified of the IRS reporting requirement and to explain that anonymity cannot be maintained. (See Section D.). Single payments that exceed $400 will also require the researcher shall have the participant complete the Acknowledgement of Research Participant Compensation form 
2. Record in a log or other research document (such as the Research Participant Compensation Log) participant payments by Cash or Gift Card, and include:
   • Protocol name or number
   • Human Subject Identifier alpha/numeric code assigned by researchers to protect the identity of participants) or identifier for Chapman employee or student.
   • Date of the transaction
   • Amount of payment
   • Name of the person making the payment.
3. Physically safeguard Cash or Gift Cards from loss at all times:
   • Place them in a safe or a locked receptacle, and keep the receptacle in a properly secured area.
   • They should be reconciled regularly (not less frequently than quarterly and upon termination of any award) by research personnel employed by the University or fiscal officer.
   • In the event of a theft, the loss must be reported to the Chapman Public Safety office.
4. Account for undistributed Gift Cards, cash, or non-monetary items
   • There may be instances when the number of participants in the study are somewhat unknown, and more Gift Cards, cash, or non-monetary items are obtained than might ultimately be used.  Since all items have cash value, the University and the researcher/designee must ensure these items are handled and tracked appropriately.  The researcher/designee will be responsible for accounting for any remaining undistributed Gift Cards, cash, or non-monetary items purchased with University funds at the completion of the study, or six months into the study if the study is to exceed six months.
   • If a researcher/designee has unused cash, the researcher/designee must return any unused cash to the Accounts Payable Office within 30 days after the completion of the study, or six months into the study if the study is to exceed six months.
   • If a researcher/designee received a cash advance and has unused Gift Cards, cash, or non-monetary items, the researcher/designee must make a cash deposit to the Cashier’s Office equal to the dollar value of the remaining/unused Gift Cards, cash, or non-monetary items.  The researcher/designee must make the deposit within 30 days after the completion of the study, or at six-month intervals if the study is to exceed six months.

Procedures

Procedure to access funds will depend on the preferred Participant Payment Type and whether the participant is anonymous or not:

IRS Reporting and Collection of Social Security Numbers

1. It is the responsibility of the researcher to maintain accurate payment records according to University accounting standards and sponsor requirements. In addition, all Human Subject payments and gifts are considered income to the recipient and the IRS requires that Chapman University (or whoever is paying the research subjects for participation) report payments in excess of $599.99 per calendar year for tax purposes.  If a researcher anticipates reaching this threshold with a single subject(s) in a calendar year, the researcher shall have the participant complete the Acknowledgement of Patient Compensation form (HYPERLINK) to ensure that participants are notified of the IRS reporting requirement and to explain that anonymity cannot be maintained. Single payments that exceed $400 will also require the researcher shall have the participant complete the Acknowledgement of Research Participant Compensation form. Historically, the majority of research projects at Chapman do not meet this reporting threshold.

Because of the sensitive data associated with Social Security numbers, these should generally be collected for research payment only when necessary to comply with IRS reporting requirements.  For projects that involve collection of SSNs, this should be explained in the protocol.  The protocol should indicate that these data will be collected separately from the research records and should describe security measures that will be used to protect subject confidentiality.  In addition, the consent form should indicate that subjects will be asked for their SSNs, why this information will be collected, and how it will be protected. NOTE: Researchers should consult with Chapman IS&T for information regarding the storage and transmission of records containing participant SSN#’s. 

Special Considerations—Chapman University Employees

All payments to Chapman University employees are considered to be taxable income, regardless of the amount of payment.  Research personnel are required to communicate the information to Financial Services regularly.  Employees receiving participant payments will see this reflected the tax form W-2 at year-end.

Special Considerations—Non-Resident Aliens (NRA)

Because tax and withholding requirements for non-resident aliens are both complex and highly variable, research personnel should exercise discretion before agreeing to pay the visitor for participation.  Financial Services must be consulted to determine the tax regulations before payment can be made to these individuals.  Unlike other participants, the university may be required to collect tax payments from the participant simultaneous to issuing gift cards.

Reimbursement of Expenses to Participants

If a participant has signed an IRB-approved consent form allowing their travel expenses to be paid for by the study, the researcher should obtain funds, pay the participant's expenses, and settle the funds, using a method described above (e.g., petty cash, cash advance). Supporting documentation for the reimbursement should be retained in the departmental records. In order to protect the anonymity of the subject, no receipts should be sent to Accounting.

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  

*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

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.

Screening of Individuals and Entities to Ensure Compliance with Federal Regulations

Chapman University uses several tools to expedite the screening of individuals or entities against various U.S. government lists to ensure the University does not enter barred or otherwise restricted activities with individuals and entities.  Visual Compliance, a system specifically applicable to export controls and other transactions as listed below, is used to ensure that the University does not engage in a transaction with a barred entity. Risk Aware is utilized by HR after an offer is extended and accepted, as part of the pre-hire onboarding process, and the US Treasury list is utilized by Financial Services for financial transactions.

The following Chapman departments are authorized license holders for Visual Compliance and can run a restricted party screening.  Office of Research (Brian Henriquez and Molly McCarty), Financial Services (Patrick Rausch), Faculty Advancement (Justin Ringor,) and Center for Global Education (Kristin Beavers).  In an emergency or short deadline, one of the other offices can help with screening if the Primary Point of Contact is unavailable.

All the systems below allow for the creation of a record of the scan (e.g., a pdf document or an email of the results).  Requesters for the scan should keep a record of each screening so the information can be reviewed in the future, as necessary.

When an external entity wishes to fund Chapman researchers to perform a project, the project may be classified as either a sponsored research project or a fee-for-services project.  The university will first need to determine the classification of the project in order to put in the place the appropriate agreement.  To make such a determination, the office of Sponsored Projects Services (SPS) will review the planned scope of work using the indicators below.

After SPS makes the determination of the type of project and approves the project’s scope and budget, the office of Industry Alliances and Commercialization will work with the Office of Legal Affairs to put in place the appropriate agreement with the external party.

Please contact SPS at (714) 628-2805 or SPS@chapman.edu if you have any questions.

Sponsored Research Indicators:

• Funds the major functions of basic & organized research, instruction, or other sponsored activity
• Mutual exchange between a sponsor & Chapman that supports and advances Chapman’s mission and benefits both the sponsor and Chapman
• Activity results in generalizable knowledge intended to be shared broadly with the scientific community
• Chapman:
  • has authority to make overall programmatic decisions, with performance measured against program objectives rather than customer specifications
  • controls the method and results of the overall project
  • is responsible for the overall project or program outcomes
• Contributes to the scientific development of the project
• Activity is carried out with the intent to disseminate further knowledge, including potential publication (e.g., Chapman researchers contribute as authors or co-authors)
• Activity may result in a Chapman patentable innovation
• Copyrightable material may be developed while carrying out the work, and Chapman intends to retain ownership and control for future research or academic purposes
• Equipment fabrication or development for a federal agency

Fee-For-Services Indicators

• The primary benefit is to the customer
• The Chapman activity is ancillary to a program or project, and Chapman is not responsible for meeting program objectives or overall program progress
• Billing for a service activity is typically based on a fee schedule, pricing list, per diem, or per unit basis
• Service costs are typically expressed on an hourly or per unit basis
• Activity is not carried out with the intent to further disseminate knowledge, including publication

Existing Guidance from Other Federal Agencies

Department of Energy [DOE]

DOE Directive O 486.1A, Foreign Government Sponsored or Affiliated Activities September 4, 2020

To ensure the continued flow of scientific and technical information consistent with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) broad scientific mission, while also ensuring protection of U.S. competitive and national security interests and DOE program objectives; preventing potential conflicts of interest, e.g., financial interests, conflicts of commitment, and outside employment, which may undermine the DOE research enterprise; and limiting unauthorized transfers of scientific and technical information. Cancels DOE O 486.1, dated 6-7-2019.

Science Article on DOE Policies February 8, 2019

DOE Directive regarding Foreign Government Talent Recruitment, June 7, 2019 

DOE Order 486.1: "To ensure the continued flow of scientific and technical information consistent with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) broad scientific mission, while also ensuring protection of U.S. competitive and national security interests and DOE program objectives; and limiting unauthorized transfers of scientific and technical information."

Department of Defense [DOD]

Department of Defense Letter raising awareness of efforts to combat foreign influences on research integrity. The letter highlights the efforts of JCORE - Joint Committee on the Research Environment

"In his September 16, 2019. letter to the research community. Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), described a new OSTP-led interagency Joint Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE).

DoD is an active participant in JCORE, and in its sub-committee on Research Security, which is initially focused on coordinating four lines of Federal effort:

1. coordinating outreach and engagement
2. disclosure requirements for participation in federally funded research
3. best practices for academic research institutions
4. methods for identification, assessment, and management of risk

This work will help agencies that fund Federal research to develop common standards for identifying and adjudicating conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment from these disclosures. It will also help agencies that fund Federal research to clarify consequences for failing to make these disclosures."

Department of Defense Memo - Actions for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Controlled Information, Key Personnel and Critical  March 20, 2019

“The National Defense Authorization Act (NOAA) for FY 2019, Section 1286, pages 443- 445, directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an initiative to work with academic institutions who perform defense research and engineering activities: 1. To support protection of intellectual property, controlled information, key personnel, and information about critical technologies relevant to national security; and 2. To limit undue influence, including through foreign talent programs, by countries to exploit United States technology within the Department of Defense research, science and technology, and innovation enterprise.”

Prohibition on Procurement of Foreign-Made Unmanned Aircraft Systems [DARS Tracking Number: 2020-O0015] [May 29, 2020]

Effective immediately, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted, contracting officers shall not enter into or renew a contract for the procurement of—

• An unmanned aircraft system (UAS), or any related services or equipment, that—
  • Is manufactured in the People’s Republic of China or by an entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China;
  • Uses flight controllers, radios, data transmission devices, cameras, or gimbals manufactured in the People’s Republic of China or by an entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China;
  • Uses a ground control system or operating software developed in the People’s Republic of China or by an entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China; or
  • Uses network connectivity or data storage located in, or administered by an entity domiciled in, the People’s Republic of China; or
    • A system for the detection or identification of a UAS, or any related services or equipment, that is manufactured—
  • In the People’s Republic of China; or
  • By an entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China.

This prohibition does not apply to procurements for the purposes of: counter-UAS surrogate testing and training; or intelligence, electronic warfare, and information warfare operations, testing, analysis, and training.

This class deviation implements the procurement prohibition under section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]

Gic 12-01 Class Deviation Implementing Nasa Restrictions On Funding Activities With The People's Republic Of China (Prc) Effective April 25, 2011

“NASA is restricted by specific applications of Section 1340(a) of The Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act, Public Law 112-10 (NASA's 2011 continuing resolution), and Section 539 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-55 (NASA's FY 2012 appropriation) from using funding appropriated in the Acts to enter into or fund any grant or cooperative agreement of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company, at the prime recipient level or at any subrecipient level, whether the bilateral involvement is funded or performed under a no-exchange of funds arrangement.”

National Institutes of Health (NIH) (New Guidance)

Effective January 25, 2022, NIH requires awardees to report all relevant activities and resources in support of the investigator’s research endeavors on the required Other Support (OS) form to ensure transparency and to assess potential scientific, budgetary, and/or commitment overlap and the capacity of the individual to carry out the research as proposed.  This guidance change includes the requirement of all Investigators to electronically sign their Other Support pages to confirm that the information contained in that documentation is true and complete.  NIH has also revised instructions for the completion of Biographical Sketches for inclusion in proposals submitted on or after January 25, 2022.

NIH Data Management and Sharing (DMS)

NIH Biosketch Quick Reference Document

NIH Biosketch Instructions

NIH Biosketch FAQs

Sample NIH Biosketch

Blank NIH Biosketch Document

NIH OS Quick Reference Document

NIH OS Instructions

NIH OS FAQs

Sample NIH OS

Blank NIH OS Document

RPPR Instruction Guide, Section D.2c Changes in other support

E-signature Quick Reference Document

NIH Pre-award and Post-award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical Sketch and Other Support

National Science Foundation (Effective Oct. 2020)

As of October 2020, the National Science Foundation (NSF) requires one of two forms for submitting Biographical Sketches and Current and Pending Support: the Fillable PDF or the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) SciENcv (Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae).  Proposers are required to use the updated version of the NSF-approved formats in accordance with Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 22-1) for submission of the biographical sketch and current and pending support for proposals submitted or due on or after October 4, 2021.

NSF Quick Reference Document

NSF Current & Pending Support Instructions

NSF Fillable PDF for Current and Pending Support

NSF Biosketch Instructions

NSF Fillable PDF for Biosketch

FAQs on Using NSF Fillable PDF

FAQs on Using SciENcv

Chapman University supports international collaborations and values its partnerships with academic institutions and other organizations worldwide.  When engaging in these collaborative relationships, it is important that all members of Chapman’s research community understand and comply with current regulatory requirements.

In response to the US federal government’s growing concerns related to undue foreign influence on academic research, multiple federal agencies have issued new requirements regarding transparency and international collaborations.  These guidelines reiterate the commitment of US agencies to promoting and protecting federally funded research and innovation from the risk of illicit appropriation, influence, and theft by foreign governments.  National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have issued directives about safeguarding US knowledge and intellectual property with the intent of reminding the research community of their obligations regarding foreign entities and federally funded activities.

Chapman University researchers are reminded that they must disclose all current and pending support and affiliations, whether paid or unpaid, foreign or domestic, in their sponsored research proposals and/or other sponsor-required documentation.  This includes any involvement in “foreign talent” (recruitment) programs.  Researchers are also reminded of their obligation to complete the University Financial Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure, and to update that disclosure should new collaborations arise.

Please see information below in the following tabs for a summary of the key agencies’ guidance related to foreign influence and the reporting obligations that fall to researchers.

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:

• 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E - Cost Principles 200.400 - 200.475

AUDIT REQUIREMENTS:

• 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements 200.500 - 200.521

Grants.gov

• Search funding opportunities

ERCR Instructions September 29, 2022

ERCR Template