Responsible Conduct of Research File Summaries

• required R to develop systematic and written processes with his/her research group addressing co- authorship, acknowledgement, paper submission and sign-off, recording, access to storage and ownership of research data;
• required R to meet with each member of his/her research group to discuss good practices in those areas; and
• undertook to implement an educational program on integrity in research and scholarship for all faculty, post-doctoral fellows and graduate students.

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for two years.

• requested the retraction of all articles containing suspected manipulations; and
• developed a policy on international collaborations.

• cancelled R’s grants;
• required the reimbursement of unused funds associated with R’s grants; and
• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for four years.

R, a faculty member, published two journal articles without reference to his/her own earlier conference paper on the same topic. This is a common practice in R’s field, as long as there is significantly more data in the article. This was the case here, but a second article did not contain enough additional data and, therefore, the earlier conference papers should have been cited. The omission was not intentional.

In addition, R published two papers that had overlapping material but did not cross-reference them. The papers described similar research methods but probed entirely different research questions, which were carried out in parallel, and did not build on each other. Consequently, there was no need to cross- reference them.

• advised R to take greater care in preparing documents such as manuscripts and grant applications, and to pay particular attention to complete and accurate citations.

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for two years.

• requested that the manuscript be withdrawn; and
• required R to submit an erratum to the journal regarding data errors in the published article, and to review the rest of the data and retract the article if additional errors were identified.

• declared R ineligible to apply for or hold Agency funding for three years; and
• declared R permanently ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes.

• placed a letter of reprimand on R’s file for five years.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding and to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for one year.

• required R to apologize in writing to his/her advisor, and a student whose works he/she plagiarized;
• failed R on his/her doctoral candidacy examination;
• suspended R from his/her faculty for a year with no extension of the maximum time allowed in the doctoral program; and
• placed an official reprimand on R’s academic transcript.

• terminated R’s award;
• required the Institution to reimburse award funds not yet disbursed to R; and
• declared R permanently ineligible to apply for or hold Agency funding.

• provided R with training focused on the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research and institutional policies; and
• required R’s grant applications to be reviewed by the Institution’s designated RCR contact before submission, for three years.

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for two years.

• directed R and corresponding authors to correct the two publications;
• corrected the research record through the submission of errata and replacement figures; and
• directed R to review and revise the procedures in his/her laboratory.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reiterating his/her responsibilities as a Principal Investigator and author, and stressing the importance of proper management of research data; and
• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for a year.

• no actions taken due to R’s departure.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

• Institution A issued a letter of reprimand and placed a record of unacceptable behaviour in R’s file.
• Institution B suspended R’s doctoral degree, but allowed R to re-register as a student to revise the plagiarized passages within six months and resubmit the dissertation. If the examining committee were to approve the revisions, the degree would be reinstated; and
• required R to retract the article.

• cancelled R’s post-doctoral Fellowship;
• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding for five years;
• advised Institutions A and B to educate their researchers and students on the responsible conduct of research;
• asked Institutions A and B to provide the Secretariat with copies of their RCR education plans; and
• requested that Institution B report to the Secretariat on its final determination with respect to R’s doctoral degree.

• sued R for recovery of grant funds; and
• revised its policy and procedures on monthly reconciliation of expenses.

• required R’s Institution to reimburse the Agency for expenditures that lacked receipts, and to change its expense verification process;
• declared R permanently ineligible to apply for Agency funding; and
• issued a letter of awareness to the Principal Investigator’s Institution and R’s Institution reminding them that financial issues should be reported promptly, as the allegation was submitted a few years after R left his/her Institution.

R, a faculty member submitted an application for funding that contained a sufficient amount of uncited text from ten publications by other authors. However, most of the publications were included in the reference list. A Research Fellow in R’s lab had inserted the un-cited texts. The Fellow admitted his/her errors and confirmed they were made without R’s knowledge. However, as a Principal Investigator, R failed in his/her duty to supervise the Fellow.

During the investigation, R directed the Fellow to attend a course on research practices and acquired plagiarism detection software.

• directed R to submit grant applications, with evidence of software screening, to an administrative official at the Institution, for approval, for three years;
• placed a letter on R’s file for three years stating that any further incident would result in the revocation of R’s privileges to submit grants;
• prohibited the Fellow from submitting grants on his/her own for five years;
• placed a letter on the Fellow’s file for three years stating that any further incident would result in dismissal; and
• developed case-based training learning modules for faculty on issues such as authorship, publication practices and plagiarism.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reminding him/her that, as the Fellow’s supervisor, R had a responsibility to review the Fellow’s work;
• declared the Fellow ineligible to apply for Agency funding for five years; and
• issued a letter to the Institution expressing concern with the lack of supervision associated with this file and stressing the importance of collective responsibility not only of researchers and students, but also of institutions in the responsible conduct of research.

R1, a faculty member, provided a letter of support for a fellowship application submitted by his/her spouse, R2, and agreed to act as supervisor. The spousal relationship was not disclosed in the application. R2 was awarded the Fellowship.

Both spouses were in a clear conflict of interest situation. However, the application did not contain false or misleading facts. Some institutional officials, who were involved in the application process, were aware of the conflict of interest but failed to intervene.

• permitted R1 and R2 to work together on the research project described in the application but appointed a replacement supervisor;
• prohibited R2 from evaluating any research assistants, affiliates or associates employed by R1; and
• advised R1 and R2 to explicitly and clearly disclose their family status in any future applications.

• revoked R2’s Fellowship; and
• issued a letter of reprimand to R1.

• none, since R was no longer at the Institution and therefore the Institution had no ability to enforce a remedy.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding for five years; and
• declared R permanently ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes.

• withdrew R’s thesis and revoked R’s Master’s degree;
• requested that the published article be retracted;
• directed R’s supervisor to discuss responsible conduct of research with his/her students; and
• reviewed its agreements, policies and guidelines against the Tri-Agency Framework to ensure consistency, added material to the institutional website, and provided more RCR training opportunities.

• required R to reimburse funds received for his/her Master’s award;
• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding for five years.
• issued a letter of reprimand to R’s supervisor, who was also an author on the paper, stating:
  • that he/she failed to pay sufficient attention to R’s work;
  • the importance of proper supervision;
  • that additional care should be taken when authoring a paper; and

• required R to reimburse the total amount of expenses that the Institution deemed ineligible;
• improved controls over research expenditures by implementing new procedures and hiring additional personnel;
• started training administrative staff and researchers at the Institution on the eligibility of grant funds; and
• took no action against R as it believed that financial mismanagement was mostly due to its own inadequate controls.

• required the Institution to reimburse the amount representing the reported ineligible expenses;
• issued a letter of reprimand to R stressing his/her responsibility to manage grant funds in accordance with Agency policies; and
• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding for two years.

• required R to:
  • remind all members of his/her team of the importance of rigorous and objective use of research results which, if preliminary or incomplete, should be presented as such;
  • meet with all individuals in his/her lab regarding research practices; and
  • supervise more closely the activities in his/her lab and ensure that research results are verified.
• given that the errors in the article were minor and had no impact on the validity of the results, the Institution did not require a retraction of the article.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R regarding his/her supervisory responsibilities;
• required R to correct the research record, either through a corrigendum or retraction; and
• issued a letter of reprimand to a doctoral student in R’s lab, who was involved in the occurrence of the errors, for a lack of rigour.

• placed a copy of the inquiry report in R’s file.

• issued a letter of awareness to R emphasizing the importance of acknowledging one’s own previously published work in subsequent publications.

• withdrew R’s thesis from the Institution’s Library and from the National Library; and
• required R to correct the thesis and resubmit it.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R, emphasizing the importance of proper citation.

• provided R with training focused on the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research and institutional policies; and
• explored the development and delivery of additional training opportunities for all researchers at the Institution.

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for two years.

• suspended R for one month, without pay; and
• reimbursed the ineligible expenses to the Agency.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R advising him/her:
  • of his/her responsibility as a grant holder to manage funds in accordance with Agency policies; and
  • of the importance of keeping documentation to support grant-related expenses.

• expelled R from the Institution as this was a second offence;
• requested a retraction of one paper and a corrigendum for another;
• provided the Principal Investigator and co-supervisors with coaching and training on research integrity and the supervision of students; and
• provided additional targeted education, especially for faculty members involved in research teams, regarding expectations with respect to standards of integrity in graduate supervision, oversight of thesis documents, and multi-authored publications.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding for three years;
• declared the Principal Investigator and co-supervisors ineligible to apply for Agency funding, for two years, and ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes, for two years;
• issued a letter of awareness to the Principal Investigator emphasizing the importance of paying closer attention when co-authoring a paper; and
• issued letters of awareness to the co-supervisors emphasizing the importance of proper supervision and of paying closer attention when co-authoring a paper.

• suspended R1 without pay for four months; and
• placed R2 on disciplinary probation for the remainder of his/her studies and placed a disciplinary letter in his/her file.

• discontinued Agency funding for R1 and required the Institution to reimburse a portion of the funds;
• declared R1 ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding, and to participate in Agency peer review, both for two years; and
• declared R2 ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding for two years.

• required R to add C to the authorship of the paper and to notify the journal.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing the importance of appropriately acknowledging authorship.

• terminated R’s employment; and
• reviewed its procedures and implemented new measures related to the management of grant funds (i.e., policies, regulations and procedures).

• terminated R’s grants;
• required the Institution to reimburse the misused funds and any grant funds remaining in R’s grant account; and
• declared R permanently ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding or participate in Agency peer review processes.

• terminated R’s employment; and
• reviewed its procedures and implemented new measures related to the management of grant funds (i.e., policies, regulations and procedures).

• terminated R’s grants;
• required the Institution to reimburse the misused funds and any grant funds remaining in R’s grant account; and
• declared R permanently ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding or participate in Agency peer review processes.

• no further action taken, as Institution was satisfied with actions taken by R.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R acknowledging his/her mitigating actions but reminding him/her to ensure the accuracy of the contributions of members of his/her lab and other co-authors.

• not applicable, as R was not affiliated with an eligible institution.

• denied R’s application for a Fellowship; and
• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding and to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for one year.

• revoked R’s title at the Institution and placed a permanent letter of reprimand in his/her file;
• required R to prepare letters to the two students stating that their writing is indeed their own, and confirming that they had not engaged in plagiarism of material from R’s book. The intent is that letters could be submitted to journal editors or book publishers, along with their work, should the students choose to publish; and
• asked R’s publisher to acknowledge the students in future versions of the book and in its advertising.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding and to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for two years.

• Not applicable.

• terminated R’s Agency award;
• required R to reimburse Agency funds already disbursed; and
• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding and participate in Agency peer review processes, both for three years.

• no action was taken.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reminding him/her of the importance of appropriately referencing the work of others.

• requested a retraction of the publications.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for five years; and
• directed the Institution to reimburse the remaining grant funds.

• took no action, due to the factors cited above.

• issued a letter of awareness to R reminding him/her of the importance of appropriate attribution and recognition of the contributions of others.

• The Principal Investigator directed R to:
  • correct and re-submit the thesis to reflect the true origin of the data and his/her role in the study;
  • correctly reference and attribute credit to the researchers who designed, led and carried out the study, and to the funding Agency; and
  • commit to not disseminate or publish the research results derived from R’s use of the data.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

R, a faculty member, was the recipient of an Agency award in which he/she would work on a research project partly at the premises of a sponsoring partner. R engaged a number of students to assist him/her. By carrying out an investigation and an audit, the Institution concluded that R and the partner breached the conditions of the grant in a number of respects, including the following:

• the partner did not supervise the students as required by the program, and the students did not spend the required amount of time working at the partner’s site;
• R likely received money from at least two of the students, which he/she likely used to improperly pay back the partner for its expenses;
• R was reimbursed in full for the same grant expenses from the Agency as well as from two other organizations involved in the research project;
• R was aware that reports submitted by students concerning their work included false information; and
• R counselled students to mislead the investigators.

• terminated R’s employment; and
• informed the police of R’s financial impropriety.

• declared R permanently ineligible to apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes;
• issued a letter of concern to the partner outlining the manner in which it failed to meet the Agency’s expectations and the impact that this had;
• required the Institution to reimburse all misspent Agency funds; and
• required the Institution to develop a plan to prevent similar breaches.

• suspended R without pay for several months;
• required R to retract the article; and
• rescinded the student’s Master’s degree.

• declared R and the student ineligible to apply for Agency funding for three years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for three years.

• required each grant application by R to be verified by a Dean prior to submission, for two years.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding and to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for two years.

• strengthened its financial control framework; and
• reported the former administrative officer’s actions to the police.

• issued a letter to the Institution acknowledging the steps it took to strengthen its financial controls;
• required the Institution to reimburse the misappropriated funds; and
• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing the need to pay closer attention to the authorization of his/her grant expenditures.

• reimbursed the Agency the funds remaining in R’s grant account.

• declared R ineligible to apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for two years.

• terminated R’s employment.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for three years;
• required the Institution to reimburse the Agency the entire amount of R’s grant; and
• issued a letter of awareness to the Institution reminding it to verify the accuracy of each application that it endorses.

• recommended to the foreign institution that R withdraw his/her thesis, with the right to submit a new one if he/she obtained the consent of the other contributors, added proper references, and removed the Canadian institution’s name from the title page.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R stressing that:
  • his/her breach of the RCR Framework was unacceptable, and advising that, should he/she relocate to Canada, his/her eligibility to apply for and hold Agency funds in the future would be conditional on R providing evidence of retraction of the thesis; and
  • he/she needs to familiarize him/herself with, and respect, the research integrity policies applicable to his/her research; and
• issued a letter of awareness to R’s supervisor highlighting:
  • that not investing the necessary time to read a visiting graduate scholar’s thesis, when part of the scholar’s work was done in his/her lab, falls below the appropriate standard of scientific behaviour. The head of a lab is responsible for the work arising from the lab; and
  • the importance of establishing appropriate communication and support mechanisms in the lab, including assignment of authorship; and
• issued a letter to the Canadian institution:
  • underscoring that its controls and support for visiting students were inadequate;
  • requesting that it submit a plan on how it intended to address these inadequacies; and
  • emphasizing that all research conducted under its auspices or jurisdiction has to comply with Agency policies.

• introduced measures to assist researchers in completing grant application forms.

• issued a letter of awareness to the Principal Investigator of the research team reminding him/her of his/her responsibility to provide accurate and complete information on applications and inform the Agency in a timely fashion of any significant changes.

• closed R’s lab;
• terminated R’s employment;
• assisted the students of R’s lab in continuing their studies and reorienting their work to obtain their degrees; and
• reimbursed the grant funds to the Agency.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for five years.

• expelled R, with no possibility of re-admission.

• terminated R’s Agency scholarship award;
• required R to reimburse Agency funding already disbursed;
• declared R permanently ineligible to apply for Agency funding; and
• required the Institution to reimburse any funds remaining in R’s scholarship award account.

• required R to reimburse the ineligible amounts;
• issued a letter of reprimand to R; and
• imposed restrictions and conditions on R’s ability to make travel arrangements and submit expenses for five years.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reminding him/her that expenses claimed must be eligible in accordance with Agency policies.

In eight publications, R failed to meet the standards of the discipline in several respects, including lack of scholarly rigour, self-plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, and failure to acknowledge the contributions of other researchers appropriately. R also failed, in several instances, to keep records of the research conducted.

It was found that some misrepresentations of data in the articles were the result of honest and reasonable error while others were caused by R’s failure to exercise reasonable care in the direction and oversight of the research. R also deliberately misled the investigating committee by presenting altered figures which misrepresented data obtained during repeat experiments.

Finally, R shared a confidential grant application, which he/she obtained as an Agency peer reviewer, with a PhD student in his/her lab.

R resigned his/her position at the Institution.

The Institution’s integrity policy was found to have inadequate guidance on data retention and on submitting allegations.

• notified journals and co-authors of the papers in which scholarly misconduct was identified; and
• implemented changes to its procedures and practices regarding retention of records and submission of allegations.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding for five years, and permanently ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes.

In eight publications, R failed to meet the standards of the discipline in several respects, including lack of scholarly rigour, self-plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, and failure to acknowledge the contributions of other researchers appropriately. R also failed, in several instances, to keep records of the research conducted.

It was found that some misrepresentations of data in the articles were the result of honest and reasonable error while others were caused by R’s failure to exercise reasonable care in the direction and oversight of the research. R also deliberately misled the investigating committee by presenting altered figures which misrepresented data obtained during repeat experiments.

Finally, R shared a confidential grant application, which he/she obtained as an Agency peer reviewer, with a PhD student in his/her lab.

R resigned his/her position at the Institution.

The Institution’s integrity policy was found to have inadequate guidance on data retention and on submitting allegations.

• notified journals and co-authors of the papers in which scholarly misconduct was identified; and
• implemented changes to its procedures and practices regarding retention of records and submission of allegations.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding for five years, and permanently ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes.

• removed R from a prestigious role at the Institution;
• suspended R’s access to research funds; and
• supported and reassigned R’s students to other supervisors so that they could continue their work.

Due to R’s departure, the Institution took no further action.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for five years;
• cancelled R’s grant; and
• required the Institution to reimburse the funds remaining in R’s grant account.

• took no action, as the breach was considered minor.

• issued a letter of awareness to R, reminding him/her to follow accepted authorship practices and, if unsure, to consult an expert in the field.

• not applicable as R was not affiliated with a Canadian eligible institution.

• required R to reimburse the installment paid; and
• issued a letter of reprimand to R stressing the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of awards and of advising the Agency immediately of any change in status.

• suspended R2, without pay, for four months.

• declared R2 ineligible to hold or apply for Agency funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for three years;
• issued a letter of reprimand to R1 reminding him/her to ensure that information in his/her application is accurate and includes references, even if written by a colleague.

This file involves the Principal Investigator (R1) and a co-investigator (R2) of a research project. Both are faculty members. Each filed an allegation of research misconduct against the other. R1 alleged that R2 had failed to provide certain data files to R1, and had possibly destroyed them. This allegation was determined to be unfounded. However, the project lacked a rigorous chain of custody process, which contributed to this dispute.

R2’s allegation concerned a breach of confidentiality. R2 alleged that R1 allowed research participant and focus group data to be disclosed to researchers who had recently been added to the research team, although their names had not been included in participant agreement documents or consent forms. Once R1 realized the error, he/she worked closely with institutional officials to remedy it. The allegation against R1 was upheld.

• no action was taken against R1 because he/she took responsibility for the breach and acted quickly to remedy it; and
• no action was taken against R2, since the allegation against him/her was unfounded.

• issued a letter of awareness to R1 stressing the importance of:
  • respecting the principle of continuing consent by informing participants of any changes to the research or the research team; and
  • establishing an agreement among team members on issues such as data management and chain of custody; and
• issued a letter of awareness to R2 stressing the importance of having an agreement among team members on issues such as data management and chain of custody.

This file involves the Principal Investigator (R1) and a co-investigator (R2) of a research project. Both are faculty members. Each filed an allegation of research misconduct against the other. R1 alleged that R2 had failed to provide certain data files to R1, and had possibly destroyed them. This allegation was determined to be unfounded. However, the project lacked a rigorous chain of custody process, which contributed to this dispute.

R2’s allegation concerned a breach of confidentiality. R2 alleged that R1 allowed research participant and focus group data to be disclosed to researchers who had recently been added to the research team, although their names had not been included in participant agreement documents or consent forms. Once R1 realized the error, he/she worked closely with institutional officials to remedy it. The allegation against R1 was upheld.

• no action was taken against R1 because he/she took responsibility for the breach and acted quickly to remedy it; and
• no action was taken against R2, since the allegation against him/her was unfounded.

• issued a letter of awareness to R1 stressing the importance of:
  • respecting the principle of continuing consent by informing participants of any changes to the research or the research team; and
  • establishing an agreement among team members on issues such as data management and chain of custody; and
• issued a letter of awareness to R2 stressing the importance of having an agreement among team members on issues such as data management and chain of custody.

• took no action against R as the inclusion of the mirror image was deemed to be an honest error.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing the importance of only using trusted images or figures, of obtaining consent to use them, and of referencing their authors.

R, a faculty member, committed plagiarism by:

• using two sentences similar to text found in other publications. Although the sentences should have been put in quotation marks, R did include the sources, and R’s wording did not fully duplicate that in the other publications; and
• using text from a website but did not reference the site.

Generally, R lacked knowledge on referencing practices and had mistakenly believed that web sites did not have to be referenced. R undertook to be more careful in the future.

• took no action against R.

• issued a letter of awareness to R reminding him/her to reference all text taken from other sources, including web sites.

• issued a letter of admonishment to R, which was placed in his/her file.

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for one year.

• took no action.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reminding him/her of his/her obligations with respect to scholarly rigour; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for one year.

• terminated R’s employment; and
• notified the police.

• required R to reimburse misused grant funds;
• required the Institution to reimburse any remaining funds in R’s grant account; and
• declared R permanently ineligible to hold or apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes.

• reimbursed the Agency and instituted a repayment plan with R;
• suspended R for one month without pay; and
• implemented additional financial controls.

• terminated R’s grant; and
• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for one year.

The Agency informed the Institution that its inability to identify and rectify the issue within R’s department over a period of several years fell below the standard expected of an eligible institution, but recognized the actions that the Institution has taken to ensure such an occurrence does not recur.

R was the senior and corresponding author of a published paper, which:

• contained several errors;
• should have included a balanced overview of available data;
• lacked clarity as to the basis and details of certain conclusions; and
• should have been more balanced in communicating the research data.

In addition, a public communication document released by the Institution overstated the research results. The Institution’s communications office had not provided R with an opportunity to review the document.

• required R to submit an erratum to the journal;
• directed that R and the Institution’s communications office issue a more appropriate communication document to correct and avoid public miscommunication; and
• instituted a new requirement that senior or corresponding authors be asked to review future public communication documents before they are issued.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R, emphasizing the importance of balanced and responsible scientific communication in publications; and
• issued a letter to the Institution reminding it that any public communication document regarding a scientific publication should be reviewed in its entirety, and approved, by the senior and corresponding author prior to being issued.

• placed a letter of discipline in R’s file.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for one year; and
• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing the importance of reviewing all information in a grant application for accuracy prior to submission.

R breached Agency financial policies by:

• submitting false claims about time worked by a student, and directing the student to do the same;
• charging the costs of a laptop and a research conference to salary expenses;
• claiming expenses incurred after the end of the grant; and
• submitting an inaccurate Statement of Account to the Agency.

R acknowledged his/her mistakes and repaid the ineligible expenses.

• suspended R for two weeks without pay;
• removed R from his/her position as student coordinator and prohibited him/her from supervising graduate students for 24 months unless there was co-supervision; and
• required R to provide a written apology to the student.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for two years.

• did not renew R’s term position at the Institution;
• made provisions for the continued academic and financial support of one of R’s students to ensure he/she could complete his/her degree.

• declared R ineligible to hold or apply for funding or to participate in Agency peer review processes, both for two years.

• reminded R to follow appropriate authorship policies.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R, emphasizing the importance of obtaining the consent of all authors prior to submitting an article for publication and ensuring that all contributors are appropriately acknowledged.

• informed the journals of the authorship issues so that the research record could be corrected; and
• advised R to refrain from taking ownership of the faculty member’s work, from publishing invalid results, and from acknowledging affiliation with the Institution.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of five years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same five- year period; and
• acknowledged the Institution’s and Complainant’s diligence in this matter.

R, a doctoral candidate at the Institution, admitted to deliberately fabricating research results in one published paper (Paper A) and in one paper that was under review by the journal (Paper B). This admission arose after R’s supervisor asked a junior Master’s student to replicate R’s results.

R was unable to replicate results and, feeling the pressure to publish and the fear of failure, decided to fabricate the results in Paper A. R continued this practice with Paper B, as the results in Paper B were based on Paper A. Once R realized that his/her research results were being verified, R voluntarily admitted to the data fabrication and wrote a letter of apology to their supervisor, offering to correct the results.

Following the admission, R’s supervisor immediately implemented a plan to address the situation, which included a risk analysis; a correction of the error; notification to the journal that published Paper A; a report of the breach in accordance with the Institution’s integrity policy; and the installation of special software to ensure version control of codes.

R informed the journal editors of the data fabrication, was allowed to correct the errors in Paper A and submitted an erratum to the journal for consideration. R withdrew Paper B before the review process was completed.

• expelled R from Institution.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of five years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same five- year period; and
• commended R’s supervisor for his/her swift and reasonable course of action.

R, an experienced faculty member, admitted to deliberately misrepresenting their contribution to the training of highly qualified personnel (HQP) in an Agency grant application.

While R found the online entry of information into the Agency’s forms confusing, R’s submission of inaccurate information was not deemed to be the result of honest error. This is because R appeared to have admitted to intentionally misrepresenting the information on HQP supervision, the supervisory status of many of the HQP listed could not be verified, and R appeared to have attempted to inflate the quality and variety of supervision.

• requested that R withdraw their Agency grant application; and
• terminated R’s employment.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period.

An internal audit into the research accounts of two faculty members, R1 and R2, concluded that although it could not find any evidence of intent to perpetrate financial impropriety, R2 was negligent in fulfilling his/her financial responsibilities as a Principal Investigator and did not appropriately manage his/her conflicts of interest. R2 did not properly represent/document an arrangement made with a consultant to subcontract R2’s company for work to be done by the consultant. R2 also failed to properly disclose to his/her supervisors any payment to his/her company and did not disclose those payments on any of his/her conflict-of- interest filings.

R2 admitted to not reviewing the financial activity in his/her research accounts but instead relied fully on administrators to manage his/her research accounts. After further inquiry into the examination of the appropriateness of certain payments made by R2, the Institution confirmed that the payments made using Agency funds were entirely appropriate and within the scope of the Agency grant. R2 was therefore not required to repay those amounts.

No unusual activity was identified in R1’s research accounts.

• updated R2’s conflict of interest declaration; and
• imposed relevant disciplinary action against R2 to address the issue of financial mismanagement.

• withdrew both of R2's Agency applications;
• required R2 to follow financial management and COI training before he/she could re- apply to the Agency;
• required the Institution to demonstrate that R2 had completed the above training before he/she could apply to the Agency in the future; and
• declared R2 ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for a period of one year.

R, an experienced researcher and faculty member affiliated with two institutions, was found to have engaged in serious breaches, including manipulating study data with the intention of supporting the underlying hypothesis of research studies; intentionally manipulating electronic datasets and presenting them as raw data to investigators; falsely accusing a research assistant of having carried out the manipulations; failing to correct the errors once the problems were discovered; sharing manipulated rather than primary data with colleagues; deleting records that were to form part of the Institution’s forensic investigation; failing to retain research data to a standard appropriate to the discipline; impeding an institutional investigation; and using falsified results from one study to apply for, obtain and use funding for other studies. R resigned from his/her positions at both Institutions before the investigation was complete.

The research in question involved human participants; however, the Institution in charge of investigating the matter found no evidence that the health of participants was negatively affected. The Institution notified participants by registered letter that they may have received inaccurate information about the research.

• notified the journal editor of the investigation findings and the need for the article that was published using the manipulated data to be retracted; and
• although the Institution in charge of investigating the matter found no evidence that the health of participants was negatively affected, notified participants by registered letter that they may have received inaccurate information about the research.

• declared R permanently ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding or funding from three federal research agencies or any Tri-Agency programs;
• declared R permanently ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes;
• required R to reimburse all Agency funds spent on the study; and
• publicly disclosed the serious breach.

The Agencies took the above action due to the deliberate and significant nature of the breaches.

• none, since R was no longer at the Institution.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of three years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same three- year period.

R, a senior faculty member at a Canadian Institution, also undertaking research at a non-Canadian Institution, claimed travel costs in both countries under the assumption that the expenses were allowable, given that R was performing research and research administration in two places at the same time.

Following consultation with the relevant Agency, it was determined that some of R’s travel expenses were clearly not a direct cost of research, in contravention of the Tri-Agency Financial Administration Guide. A thorough audit by the Institution found that R had spent nearly $10,000 inappropriately by submitting non-compliant travel claim expenses (e.g., duplicate per diem/accommodation costs; false expense claims; expense claim submitted for airfare and translations which had already been paid for by the non-Canadian Institution).

When asked by the Institution for documentary evidence during the investigation process, R agreed to pay back the questionable expenses rather than provide the documents requested. The Institution concluded that R made contractual agreements that were contrary to the Institution’s policies and practices. The Institution also found inconsistencies in verbal and written responses provided by R during the investigation.

The investigation concluded that R’s behavior was irresponsible and demonstrated a pattern of willful disregard for rules, guidelines, and requirements for the appropriate financial management of a large research project.

• required R to reimburse his/her grant account for the amount of non-compliant travel expense claims; and
• implemented an audit process on all of R’s research accounts for a period of three years.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of five years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same five- year period;
• issued a strongly-worded letter of reprimand to R emphasizing their responsibilities as a grantee;
• required R to follow grant management training at the Institution;
• required the Institution to implement a second-level review for all expenses submitted by R before processing any claims associated with any future Agency grants for a period of one year; and
• issued a letter to the Institution reminding it of the importance of vigilance when processing expense claims.

R, a Postdoctoral Fellow, submitted an application that was found to be substantially similar to that of a successful application submitted by R’s supervisor.

R explained that the supervisor had provided a copy of their application to R. Since the copy did not include a title, the name of the funding agency to which it was submitted or other related information, R assumed that the supervisor’s application had not been published or reviewed and that R could use it. The Institution concluded that R’s application was the product of plagiarism and that R’s justification for the plagiarism, i.e., that it was not a published document, was not relevant to the assessment of plagiarism.

• placed a letter of reprimand in R's official file at the Institution.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R, emphasizing the importance of accurate referencing, regardless of whether a text or document is published or unpublished; and
• in the letter to the Institution, included a general statement regarding supervisor/ institutional responsibility for reviewing applications they support or endorse.

The Institution concluded that R plagiarized substantial portions of a chapter in R’s Master’s thesis from a former student’s PhD thesis. R admitted to plagiarism and accepted responsibility for the breach.

The Institution decided not to revoke R’s Master’s degree because of the following mitigating factors: it was a first offense; the source material was included in the list of R’s references; the plagiarized material represented a small portion of the literature review chapter; the plagiarized material did not detract from the contributions made in the research; R freely admitted to the breach and indicated that this was not an intentional act.

• required R to correct his/her thesis, have it approved by his/her supervisor and include a preface in the thesis that it had been revised and the reason for the revision, which was to address an issue related to uncited and inappropriately cited source material;
• required R to apologize to the faculty supervisor and the former PhD student whose thesis was insufficiently referenced;
• placed a disciplinary letter of reprimand in R’s student file;
• placed R on disciplinary probation; and
• would issue a more severe penalty for any subsequent offense, up to and including expulsion.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing the importance of proper referencing.

• instituted more face-to-face training in RCR for its employees;
• revised its conflict-of-interest declaration form;
• promoted online training courses that enhance further awareness of the need to declare and manage conflicts of interest; and
• made completion of RCR training a milestone requirement within faculties.

• sent a letter of reprimand to R; and
• required R to take training recommended by the Institution; and
• acknowledged the Institution’s efforts to broaden awareness of COI issues in its community.

R, a senior faculty member, was the senior author and corresponding author on a manuscript; a PhD student was the first author. The Institution reviewed the matter and, after a thorough review of the original data by R, the latter acknowledged that the authors of the manuscript should have been more forthright in the presentation of their data and in the use of controls. R also added that they also should have been more explicit in referring to their previous work. R recognized that the way in which some of the images were presented in the manuscript was an error, and that more oversight might have identified the issue prior to submission. R also acknowledged that a more appropriately framed set of figures should have been provided.

The graduate student’s advisory committee also weighed in on this matter and noted that the student had not intended to deceive when committing a series of errors in rendering the images. The student had not understood the standard of practice with respect to duplicate publication; in particular, that the way in which he/she had presented the images was not an acceptable mode of presentation.

The Institution concluded that there were breaches of the norms and standards of scientific practice, but that the breaches did not undermine the scientific validity of the research in question.

• imposed no academic sanctions against the student (first author); but required him/her to complete appropriate training.

This breach was not the first committed by R. Although the nature and impact of this breach is not considered serious, there is a pattern of a general disregard for/lack of understanding of RCR by R.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant for a period of one year; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same one- year period;
• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing that any further breach would result in a harsher recourse;
• required R to take RCR training offered by the Institution;
• required the Institution to provide evidence that R completed the required RCR training; and
• issued a letter of awareness to the graduate student explaining the importance of RCR and that anyone conducting research on a project that is funded by the Agency, including students, must comply with Agency policies, including the RCR Framework.

• None

• issued a letter of awareness to R emphasizing the importance of proper labeling and of careful review of the source of every figure in R’s papers.

R, a graduate student, published a work online that was composed of phrases plagiarized from the work that a fellow graduate student had generated as part of a graduate course.

R admitted to the breach, which they stated was inadvertent. R was apologetic, remorseful, and promptly rectified the breach by removing the work from its online location within weeks of being notified of the issue.

• R was placed on disciplinary probation and required to complete specific actions including:
  • writing an essay on research integrity in creative writing that discusses the consequences of plagiarism;
  • meeting with key stakeholders in R’s department to discuss the plagiarism and their essay; and
  • deleting, destroying or attributing all material written by R’s student peers that R may have collected through coursework to minimize the potential of future such incidents.
• R was informed that future breaches could lead to expulsion from the Institution.

• issued a letter of awareness to R reminding them of their responsibilities to appropriately reference and, where applicable, obtain permission when using someone else’s published and unpublished work.

R, a faculty member, co-supervised a student, who was his/her child, without declaring a conflict of interest to the Institution. R had also transferred funds from his/her Agency grant to his/her child in the form of a stipend, which is not consistent with the Tri- Agency Financial Administration Guide.

When asked about the student’s role in the matter, the Institution acknowledged that all its students take courses on how to address conflict of interest, but that sometimes it is easier to recognize a conflict when seen from afar, as opposed to when one is so close to the issue, as in this instance. The Institution took no action against the student.

• required R to correct the situation by repaying the amount transferred to his/her child and instead use his/her personal funds for the student’s stipend;
• implemented a validation process in which the Institution’s finance department would oversee R’s grants for a period of 24 months;
• re-assigned supervision of R’s child to another faculty member;
• increased the awareness of all its professors regarding research integrity and RCR; and
• required that all faculty complete Module 7 of the TCPS 2 Tutorial Course on Research Ethics (CORE), which addresses conflict of interest.

• declared R ineligible to apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant for a period of two years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period;
• issued a letter of awareness to the student informing him/her of his/her responsibilities regarding RCR and the importance of identifying and addressing conflict of interest; and
• suggested to the Institution that it require its faculty to undergo specific conflict of interest training, not only Module 7 of CORE but also on its own institutional conflict of interest policy.

R1 and R2, faculty members at the Institution, and an industry partner, failed to manage their conflicts of interest in an Agency-funded research project. R1 had hired R3, the senior official of the industry partner, as a research professional to work on a separate non- Agency funded project while the adjudication process of the Agency application was underway. R3 continued to be under R1’s employ even after the Agency grant was awarded to R1, R2 and R3.

The Institution’s investigation concluded that R1’s hiring of R3 while the adjudication process of the Agency application was underway and keeping R3 under R1’s employ after the Agency grant was awarded, constituted a breach of scientific integrity. Although no research activities associated with the Agency grant occurred while R3 was employed by R1, the Institution concluded that the conflict of interest was not appropriately managed, even if the conflict existed for a very limited period.

• established an internal institutional validation process regarding future hirings by R1 and R2 for a period of 24 months, without adding unjustified delays to the research activities of R1 and R2;
• decided that R3 would no longer be employed by the Institution as a research professional while owning an enterprise that could receive research grants with the Institution;
• enhanced its training of all professors regarding research integrity and RCR; and
• made the completion of Module 7 of the TCPS 2 Tutorial Course on Research Ethics (CORE) mandatory for all its faculty.

• declared R1 and R2 ineligible to participate in Agency review processes for a period of two years and reminded them to appropriately identify and address their conflicts of interest when working with industry partners; and
• issued a letter of reprimand to R3 reminding him/her, as the president of an industry partner, to appropriately identify and address conflicts of interest prior to engaging in work with institutions or researchers, whether as a research professional or as an industry partner.

In an effort to submit a strong review, R, a senior faculty member, admitted to sharing an applicant’s proposal with several individuals in their department (a student and two faculty colleagues) to seek their opinion. R had also used the application for a purpose other than peer review, to help train the student on how to write proposals.

R did not keep the application in confidence but relied on others to do so. R recognized his/her error and apologized. It was determined that R’s intentions were not malicious, but rather, showed it was a disregard of the obligations and responsibilities agreed to as a reviewer. There was no evidence that the applicant’s intellectual property was compromised by the sharing of the application.

• not applicable, as R’s Institution had no role to play in the review of this matter (R was doing peer review on behalf of the Agencies)

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for a period of two years.

Agencies were encouraged to make the research community more aware of the obligations associated with being a peer reviewer on an Agency review committee.

R, a Postdoctoral Fellow, plagiarized in several of his/her Agency Fellowship applications by using text from the lay abstract and training expectations section of a former colleague’s Agency application without appropriate referencing or permission. R admitted that the Agency applications that he/she had submitted included text from his/her colleague, but that his/her actions were not intentional and were a result of negligence on his/her part during the editing process.

R explained that he/she had previously worked with this colleague and that the latter had provided a copy of his/her successful Agency Fellowship application to R to use as a guideline when writing his/her own Fellowship application. The plagiarized text was first used by R in his/her first Agency Fellowship application, which was unsuccessful, but R never changed that text in subsequent Agency applications. The copied text therefore continued to appear in several of R’s Agency applications, with the last application being successful. The text copied did not relate to scientific data or methodology but rather to a few sentences a lay abstract and training expectations.

As soon as R was notified of the concern by his/her colleague, R accepted responsibility and contacted the Agency to rectify the situation, which included providing the Agency with an updated lay abstract.

• not applicable as R was not affiliated with an eligible institution.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for one year; and
• uploaded R’s revised abstract to the Agency’s online funding database.

R was a faculty member at the Institution. R was also the President and a shareholder of three companies. R had submitted invoices for payment to his/her Institution in relation to a research project led by a research group at the Institution for which all three of R’s companies had provided services. Reimbursement for those services was sought from R’s Agency grant funds. R had not disclosed his/her conflict of interest with these companies to his/her Institution. R was of the view that his/her connections with the companies were known by the Institution, given that the three companies were started as a result of R’s work at the Institution.

R did not deny the existence of a conflict of interest and admitted that he/she did not complete the required declaration forms as required by the Institution’s research integrity policy. According to the Institution’s investigation report, by not declaring the conflict, R placed the Institution in a vulnerable position where it was “blindly” approving expenses invoiced by R’s companies and paid out of R’s Agency grant.

• issued a disciplinary notice to R requiring him/her to complete all necessary forms for declaring his/her conflicts of interest with his/her companies.

• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for a period of two years;
• required the Institution to carefully vet all grant applications prepared by R before they are submitted to the Agency, for a period of three years, with particular attention placed on R declaring his/her conflicts of interest; and
• required R to take COI training at his/her Institution.

R, a faculty member and co-investigator on a multi-institutional project failed to obtain research ethics approval from their own institution’s (Institution A) research ethics board (REB) prior to undertaking research involving humans. The project had received REB approval from another institution (Institution B) for the parts of the project that related to research involving humans.

As soon as R discovered their error, R contacted Institution A’s research office and voluntarily reported the unintentional breach.

Institution A concluded that R breached the RCR Framework regarding the ethical conduct of research involving humans, by failing to obtain clearance from Institution A’s REB prior to undertaking their research. The breach was not deemed serious by Institution A because at no time did R’s research pose significant risks or harm to their research participants. Moreover, the research involving human participants was reviewed and approved by Institution B’s REB and approved protocols were followed throughout the research. R was therefore allowed to continue to use and access the data that was collected under Institution B’s REB clearance. R expressed their remorse and took steps to ensure that a similar situation would not recur.

• Institution developed procedures and communications for multi-institutional research projects.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reminding them of Article 6.1 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS2), which states that “Each institution is accountable for the research carried out in its own jurisdiction or under its auspices”; and
• issued a letter to Institution A reminding it that all its researchers need to understand that any research involving humans conducted under its auspices must go through local REB review.

• Institution’s research office to assist R in completing applications for 12 months; and
• inform the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research of the correct position titles to be used in application submitted by R.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R emphasizing the importance of proving true, complete, and accurate information in applications and related documents.

• instituted several measures to prevent similar errors by its faculty in the future, including modifying its training sessions, clarifying the information on its website, and instituting procedures that permitted it to directly inform researchers involved in multi-site projects of the requirements.

• sent a letter of awareness to R, emphasizing the importance of understanding the review requirements for multi-site research and encouraging him/her to take advantage of the Institution’s updated training opportunities.

• terminated R’s award; and
• required R to repay any dispersed award funds.

R1, R2, and R3, all faculty members, manipulated images in a submitted manuscript. The Institution found that there was inappropriate editing of representative blots and a lack of due diligence in recording the data for the representative blots and in preparing the figures. Specifically, R3 failed to record which blots and lanes were used to represent the images in two figures in the manuscript. R1 and R2 (senior authors on the manuscript) were deemed negligent by the Institution in failing to recognize the seriousness of the problem when it was first raised by the journal editor. This ultimately led to the journal’s loss of confidence in the entire manuscript and its rejection on the basis of inappropriate image manipulation and acknowledgement. All three Respondents failed to provide a clear description of why the blot images were manipulated until after the manuscript was rejected by the journal and were found to be negligent in failing to understand the policies and guidelines of the Journal regarding figures of Western blots.

R1, R2 and R3 accepted responsibility for the incorrect blots in the original figures and expressed regret for the breach but maintained throughout the process that they were not purposely misleading the journal editors or the reviewers of the manuscript and that all the results and conclusions from the manuscript, in particular those from the graphs in the two figures, were valid. The Institution analyzed the research results. The research results were found to be sound. As such, the Institution concluded that the breach was a less serious breach of research integrity.

• none

• issue letters of reprimand to R1, R2 and R3;
• declared R3 ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of one year; and
• declared R1, R2 and R3 ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for a period of three years.

R, a doctoral student, included several problematic images in his/her draft thesis. Issues with the images included: inappropriate placement of white boxes over certain data points, using low-quality images without describing their limitations, presenting images that did not correspond to the compound they were intended to represent, including other students’ data and findings with insufficient acknowledgement/attribution. An investigation committee found that these issues were due to sloppy research practice and poor supervision. R was also found to have falsified tabulated data to make it better correspond to images that had already been generated.

R had previously been found to have breached the Institution’s policies on responsible conduct of research.

• required R to submit the dissertation to an advisory committee that included one investigation committee member;
• placed a finding of misconduct on R’s transcript; and
• required R to make formal apologies to his/her former supervisor and colleagues in the lab.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of four years;
• ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same four-year period.

R, a PhD student at the Institution, failed to maintain appropriate research notes and lab books or properly record his/her raw and primary data; fabricated and falsified research data; destroyed/removed research records; and reported non-existent work (R’s thesis research could not be verified or duplicated). The Institution was concerned with R’s credibility and reliability through the inquiry/investigation process.

Although R was found to be solely responsible for his/her actions, the Institution noted that R lacked supervision, in that issues that arose were not properly or adequately addressed. Had there been better supervision, it is possible that many of the issues could have been discovered earlier and some perhaps avoided altogether.

• expelled R from the Institution; and
• addressed the gap in the Institution’s procedures and supervisory systems.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of five years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same five- year period.

Although the breaches were serious and committed intentionally, the Agency decided that there was minimal benefit in public disclosure of this file. This decision was based on the fact that the safety of the public was not at issue; there was no impact on the research record; R had already been expelled from the Institution with a note on his/her transcript; and the likelihood of R doing research elsewhere was slim.

The Agency commended the Institution on its thoroughness in addressing the gaps in both the academic procedural and supervisory systems.

• Institution informed four publishers of any content to which R contributed that could not be substantiated with available raw data.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of one year; and
• ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same one-year period.

• none

• issued a letter of awareness to R, stressing the importance of appropriately referencing any materials taken from sources that he/she has previously published.

Given the number of allegations made against a retired faculty member (R), with respect to multiple publications, the Institution examined R’s body of work and concluded that R had engaged in plagiarism in four conference proceeding papers which contained large sections that were copied from unnamed sources. The Institution concluded that R should have known that citations were needed but that it was more of a lapse in judgment than a deliberate attempt to deceive. Based on the considerable number of publications authored by R, there was no evidence that plagiarism was a consistent pattern of behavior in R’s works. In the context of both the time when the articles were written and R’s considerable body of research, the Institution concluded that the plagiarism was minor.

Despite the overlap between R’s conference presentations and the publications, the Institution noted that this practice was acceptable at the time within R’s discipline and sometimes even promoted by R’s discipline. The Institution therefore concluded that there was nothing to suggest that R sought to gain advantage through this pattern of presenting papers and submitting them in whole or in part to journals.

All the other allegations were unfounded.

• retraction of the four conference papers in which plagiarism was found;
• required R to write a letter of apology to the people whose work R had plagiarized;
• required R to rectify his/her practice of listing his/her publications on his/her website in conformity with the practices of R’s discipline, by sorting his/her publication by category (e.g., journal articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, patents, etc.);

• no recourse.

Given the impact of R’s breaches on the research record were minor, particularly in light of the fact that, in R’s discipline, standard practices for referencing conference papers in journal articles that arise from them have changed over time, and that R promptly corrected the research record when requested, the Agency decided that recourse against R was not warranted.

• none

• issued a letter of awareness to R.

Given that the breach had no impact on the research record and R’s application was not successful, the breach did not contribute to any benefit to R.

R, a Postdoctoral Fellow, copied information from a professor’s works and used it in their application for Agency funding without appropriate citation. Approximately 40 lines of text were allegedly plagiarized.

The Institution’s findings noted minor plagiarism. While the plagiarism did not involve text that would have provided an advantage to R, nor did it impact the research record, R’s actions were nonetheless inappropriate. R was remorseful for their actions. The application for funding was not successful.

• advised R to be more vigilant in the future by adequately citing all sources from which text is borrowed.

• issued a letter of awareness to R reminding them of the importance of accurately referencing and, where applicable, obtaining permission for the use of all published and unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies, findings, graphs, and images.

• none

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of one year;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same one- year period; and
• required the Institution to a) inform the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research of any measures it plans to take to prevent a recurrence of similar errors; and b) reimburse the Agency for funds spent from the grant during the ineligibility period. In this instance, the Institution was asked to re-imburse the funds rather than R, since the Institution contributed to the breach.

• the Institution worked with R to improve his/her management of situations of conflict of interest.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period.

R, a graduate student, breached the TCPS 2 by conducting interviews with human participants without obtaining final approval from the research ethics board (REB). R had submitted their ethics application for REB approval for a study that would involve interviewing individuals from a specific population. R obtained conditional approval from the REB with the understanding that certain modifications needed to be made to the ethics application participant consent forms. R and their supervisor acknowledged and explained that they conducted the interviews without REB approval because of an urgency in being able to study the population at a particular time, otherwise would have the research project would have been significantly delayed and could have impacted the success of the project.

The research was minimal risk, and the breach had no impact on the research participants.

• reprimanded R and R’s supervisor reprimanded verbally and in written correspondence.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R and R’s supervisor.

R, a faculty member at the Institution, was found to have used sentences, and in some instances, series of sentences in his/her grant application that were directly or very closely taken from a review paper without appropriate citation. R accepted responsibility for the breach by acknowledging that some of the phrases used in his/her application came from the review paper but stated that he/she had not intended to appropriate someone else’s work.

Although the review paper and a number of other papers from the same author of the review paper were referenced throughout R’s grant application, R’s referencing was inadequate. There were several instances where direct sentences were borrowed, and quotes were not properly employed. The Institution noted that R’s error was an isolated incident and was not intended to thwart the spirit of responsible conduct of research.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

• issued a letter of awareness to R and encouraged him/her to consult citation best practices, such as those offered by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Following a review of a faculty member’s published article, R, was found to have plagiarized from various sources, without appropriate referencing. In its review, the Institution also concluded that R self-plagiarized and failed to acknowledge the grant that supported the research in the article.

The Institution suspended R, with pay, pending the results of the investigation. R resigned from the Institution before the investigation was complete. R indicated that they would be pursuing future employment outside of academia.

• none against R as R resigned from the Institution;
• Institution informed the relevant journals of its findings in order to correct the research record; and
• Institution contacted collaborators and co-authors about the issues with the articles so that they could take proactive measures for any in-progress work.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period; and
• reminded the Institution that an inquiry or investigation, in accordance with the RCR Framework, is required for all allegations received, regardless of funding source.

R, a faculty member, conducted research on a healthy control group and a healthy participant group. R received ethics approval for the study. R’s original ethics protocol and subsequent renewals, however, did not explicitly mention that healthy control participants would be part of the study. R assumed that the inclusion of a healthy control group was implied and was covered under the original ethics approval. R had obtained informed consent from both groups.

As Principal Investigator of the study, R bears responsibility for not being more proactive in ensuring that the appropriate clearances were in place. This said, the REBs that originally approved the protocol and the REB that continued to renew and approve the protocol over the years, are also responsible for this administrative lapse based on their lack of oversight and auditing of the research proposal, including failure to adequately review protocols, particular over a long period of time.

• None

• issued a letter of awareness to R requesting that they be more explicit in their future ethics applications as to what groups they will be recruiting into their studies; and
• issued letters to those responsible for overseeing all health research involving human participants for the Institution, including the REBs, encouraging them to consider improving their ethics renewal mechanisms, especially regarding studies conducted over many years, so that such an issue gets caught earlier on in the process.

• worked with the Agency and grant team members to ensure continuation of the project.

• issued a letter to the Institution encouraging it to remind its faculty of their responsibility to appropriately identify and manage any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

R, a Principal Investigator on an Agency-funded research study, breached the TCPS 2 by changing the study design for their research without submitting an amendment to the Institution’s Research Ethics Board (REB). R collected data on children participating in various tests set up by the research team using a different venue/setting from what had been approved by the REB. This resulted in at least one participant feeling forced to participate in the tests without their consent. R believed that the tests that had already been approved by the REB were simply being conducted in a different venue/setting and therefore did not consider the participant risks to be different.

The Institution was of the view that the breaches were unintentional. R had minimal experience with conducting research with this particular participant group, in this specific setting, and therefore appeared not to have realized the impact of testing this group in different environments. This said, the change in settings resulted in emotional distress to at least one participant.

While R accepted full responsibility for the breach, the Institution concluded that the graduate student researchers named on the REB application were also bound by the ethical requirements to submit an amendment to the REB. As such, the Institution was of the view that R did not have sole responsibility for the breach.

• REB suspended ethics approval of the study and notified R to cease all research activity and data collection related to the study;
• required R to destroy all the research data that had been collected at the new venue/setting; and
• reminded R of his/her obligations to ensure compliance with Tri-Agency policies and requested that he/she review all his/her active research projects to ensure compliance with Tri-Agency policies and research ethics protocols.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of one year;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same one- year period;
• required the Institution to confirm that each graduate student involved in the study had completed the TCPS 2 CORE tutorial; and
• issued letters of awareness to the graduate students involved in the study reminding them of their responsibility to comply with TCPS 2 when conducting research involving human participants.

• expelled R from the Institution.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of three years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same three- year period.

• none

• issued a letter of awareness to R advising him/her to review manuscripts more carefully before submitting them.

• placed a letter on R’s personnel file;
• required R to take additional training in grants management and the responsible conduct of research;
• agreed to provide preliminary reviews and approvals of R’s applications, before they are submitted, for the next three years; and
• established a new practice whereby new members of R’s faculty meet at least once with a grants management officer or representative of the Institution’s research office to review Agency guidelines.

• issued a letter of awareness to R.

The Agency advised the Institution that a failure to provide adequate advice and support places students, post-doctoral fellows and faculty at risk of breaching Agency policies. The Agency acknowledged the Institution’s efforts to ensure that researchers are provided with correct and timely information on Agency requirements.

• none

• issued a letter of awareness to R;
• asked R to inform the journal of any necessary corrections to the authorship of the articles; and
• advised the Institution that, even though R’s actions may not have constituted a breach of the Institution’s policy at the time, R’s actions nevertheless constituted a breach of the RCR Framework. As such, the Institution was requested to consider modifying its existing policies to align more closely with the RCR Framework.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period.

• recommended that R1 be dealt with in accordance with their Institutional policies;
• recommended that R2’s Institution be notified of the incident of non-compliance; and
• implemented additional monitoring and reporting obligations at the Institution.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R1 highlighting a PI’s responsibilities for ensuring all approvals are in place before the research begins;
• issued a letter of reprimand to R1’s Institution to take more prompt action when a researcher is having difficulties meeting institutional requirements; and
• issued a letter to R2’s former Institution that a researcher at their Institution had been unwilling to obtain REB approval from the PI’s Institution for a multi-jurisdictional study and to encourage R2’s Institution to provide education on this topic.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R ordering them to destroy any data collected during the period of noncompliance and not to collect any further data until the REB renews its approval.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R reminding them of the importance of submitting requests for ethics renewal to the REB before the previous approvals have lapsed and that data should never be collected without a valid ethics certification in place.

R, a retired faculty member and former researcher, had published several articles in which questions arose regarding the reported process that R used to confirm specific study test results. R had not kept complete records related to the study tests. R decided to correct the literature by submitting a corrigendum to the editors of the journals associated with the papers. The published corrigendum stated that not all the samples were confirmed with the particular process reported in the papers, but that this did not impact the results presented in the papers. The conclusions remained the same and R apologized for any inconvenience caused.

Given that R indicated to the Institution that he/she did not have the records related to those studies, the Institution was unable to verify the accuracy of the corrigendum, specifically that there was no impact on the study results.

The Institution concluded that R breached his/her responsibility for keeping complete and accurate records following publication, as required by the Institution. R also failed to use a high level of rigour in his/her research, which resulted in misleading information in the scientific literature.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R advising him/her that it is not possible to rule out that R’s assertion in the corrigendum is an overstatement because it is not possible to state with certainty that the study results were not impacted; and
• communicated the same information to the journals for their consideration.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years; and
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period.

• declared R ineligible for internal funding at the Institution for one year; and
• required R to take webinars on the responsible conduct of research.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of one year;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same one- year period;
• terminated one of R’s active awards; and
• required R to reimburse any previous installments of that award.

During a routine review of research accounts at the Institution, R, a senior faculty member, failed to disclose that one of his/her collaborators on an Agency-funded project was his/her spouse. The Institution believed that R’s failure to declare this relationship did not have a substantive impact on the project or the public. R’s spouse was a collaborator on the grant rather than a co-applicant, therefore the spouse was unpaid and did not financially benefit from the grant. Moreover, R’s spouse had the requisite skills to carry out his/her role in the project.

The Institution was of the view that it had contributed to the problem by not having an adequate plan for identifying and monitoring conflicts of interest.

• adjusted its system so that researchers are prompted to declare their conflicts in a timely fashion prior to submitting applications.

• issued a letter to awareness to R with respect to the need to disclose conflicts of interest.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R; and
• required R to issue a letter of apology to the two researchers, accepting responsibility for the breach, with a copy to R’s co-investigators on the grant and to the funding Agency.

• issued a letter of awareness to R.

• R was paired with a mentor to assist in improving R’s skills in referencing, acknowledgement, and use of citations.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R; and
• recommended that the Institution arrange to have the report amended as appropriate.

• issued a letter of awareness to R.

• issued a letter of awareness to R.

R, a faculty member, applied for a grant involving a partnership with two industrial partner companies A and B. R did not disclose, either to the Institution or to the funding Agency that:

• R’s siblings were directors in the partner company A (at different times);
• one sibling’s child was an administrator in partner company A; and
• the spouse of one of the siblings was an administrator in partner company B.

• suspended R for 13 months without pay;
• adjusted its processes to ensure better post-award tracking of grants;
• improved its post-award information and training for research teams;
• offered more support and assistance to researchers when completing their conflict-of- interest forms; and
• undertook a review of the Institution’s policies on contract management to clarify its requirements.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period;
• required the Institution to reimburse the full amount of the grant.

Had the Agency been aware of the family connections between R and the two partner companies at the time of application, R would have been ineligible for the grant.

• required R make the necessary correction to the published paper acknowledging the Complainant’s contribution (a corrigendum was issued by the journal); and
• allowed the graduate student to claim on their resume or CV co-contributor status with R on the unpublished report.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R; and
• required R to approach the journal to request a correction to the authorship of the paper; the journal has since made the correction.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period; and
• removed R’s application from a peer review process that was underway.

• none, the Institution did not find a breach.

Based on the facts provided in the Institution’s report, the Agency was of the view that, in fact, R breached the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2), because in the view of Agency staff with expertise in TCPS 2, the decision not to notify participants of the co-applicant’s departure constituted a failure to provide participants with information relevant to their ongoing consent to participate in the research, as required by Article 3.3.

Although not a confirmed breach, the Agency was also concerned that the Institution’s appointment of R’s spouse to oversee the termination of the research might appear to be a conflict of interest.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R in relation to the breach of TCPS 2;
• required R to seek additional training on TCPS2; and
• advised the Institution to consider the appearance of conflict of interest when appointing research personnel.

R, a graduate student, used another author’s work as inspiration in one of his/her published works without appropriate attribution. R also listed his/her published work in the list of Research Contributions in a successful Agency Doctoral Fellowship application. The journal that published R’s work had also nominated R for a special award in his/her field for that particular piece of work.

R accepted full responsibility for his/her actions, which were unintentional. R explained that he/she appreciated the other author’s writing style and used the style. However, R failed to compare their works for excessive similarity before submitting his/her work to the journal. R was of the view that since he/she did not have the other author’s work open when writing his/her work, that any overlap between the two works did not constitute plagiarism. In addition, R did not acknowledge or recognize the other author.

R worked at rectifying the breach by immediately notifying the journal and the publisher administering the award. R’s published work was disqualified from the award competition. R released a statement of apology in response to his/her disqualification from the award. R’s work was removed from the journal’s web site and the journal issue in which R’s work originally appeared is no longer available.

• R was suspended from the faculty for a period of four months; and
• R’s Agency scholarship was also suspended for the same four-month period.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R; and
• allowed R to keep his/her Agency Fellowship award once R completed his/her suspension and if a request for readmission to the program was approved by the Institution.

• issued a letter of reprimand that was placed in R’s file for one year; and
• implemented remedial measures to support R’s supervision of graduate students, including guidance on authorship practices and the establishment of advisory committees for each of R’s graduate students to help assist and support R in the appropriate supervision of students.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R regarding appropriate authorship and COI management.

• suspended R without pay for 6 months; and
• intensified and regularized its education with respect to the responsible conduct of research across all departments.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of three years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same three- year period;
• required R to reimburse the misused funds; and
• terminated all of R’s active grants.

• terminated R’s active grants and returned residual funds to the Agency;
• terminated a tri-Agency grant held by R; and
• advised all relevant journals of the concerns with images in articles that had been published in their journals and invited the journals to take action as they saw fit.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of three years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same three- year period; and
• asked the Institution to inform the co-applicants of the issues in the publications, if it had not already done so.

R, a faculty member and supervisor of a lab with several students, published an article that was substantially similar to a previous one, without adequate referencing. In addition, R asked a student, Student B, to adapt and translate an article authored by Student A, and submit it to a different journal, without consulting Student A. Finally, R took excerpts from two articles prepared and submitted by Student A, adapted them, and published them in other journals. This led to one of Student A’s submissions being rejected for publication, since R had published the content first. R’s actions were found to be largely a result of unclear authorship practices, poor organization, and poor communication in the lab.

It was also discovered that R had applied for Agency funding while ineligible for funding at a different funding body. This is a breach of the RCR Framework. However, the breach was partly the result of incorrect advice provided to R.

• suspended R for one week without pay; and
• took measures to assist Student A to mitigate the harm caused by the breaches.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period;
• permitted R’s active grant to be transferred to a co-investigator, subject to Agency assessment and approval; and
• informed R and the Institution of the RCR Framework’s guidance with respect to applying for Agency funding while under a period of ineligibility with another funder.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R;
• mandated a third party to review the analysis and conclusions set out in both papers to determine if the corrections had the potential to modify the study conclusions. The review determined that no further corrections to the papers were warranted and therefore communication to the journals was not required; and
• established a process for monitoring data-related practices in R’s lab for a period of two years.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

• Required R to re-take the CORE and CITI tutorials on research ethics and review them with his/her supervisor.

• issued a letter of awareness to R.

The Agency also encouraged the Institution to improve its education and training related to requirements for multi-jurisdictional research.

R, a graduate student, performed surgery on animals in a manner inconsistent with the Institution’s animal care committee. The Institution concluded that a breach of research integrity was not supported, however, it noted that R had an inadequate understanding of most effective and appropriate techniques for the research in question.

The Institution also noted that the mentorship that R had received and the lab environment, and the quality of supervision in the lab, were all poor. The Institution reported that it is in the process of looking into other issues raised regarding this lab.

• required R to repeat the Institution’s animal use protocol online course before conducing any further research involving animals;
• required R to inform any new supervisor of the situation and discuss whether the research using inappropriate techniques could be included in his/her thesis;
• required R to determine whether the research conducted using inappropriate surgical techniques and without approval of modifications to the animal use protocol could be submitted for presentation or publication. If yes, R would be expected to appropriately disclose the deviations from the protocol; and
• required R to ensure that any students that he/she has trained or mentored were aware of the deficiencies in their training.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R. A more serious recourse was not imposed, since the breach was partly the result of a poor lab environment and poor supervision; and
• requested that the Institution look into systemic issues in the lab and report back to the Agency, including detailed measures the Institution intends to take to ensure more appropriate lab environments in the future.

R, an established researcher and supervisor of a lab, was found to have forced a post-doc to deposit sums of money, representing a portion of his/her post-doc salary, to R’s personal bank account. The amount in question was approximately $25,000. The other allegations were not substantiated.

After an Institutional audit, R reimbursed the Institution for the full amount of the misdirected funds.

• terminated R’s employment; and
• reimbursed the former post-doc for the amount of the misdirected funds.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of three years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same three- year period; and
• terminated R’s active awards.

R, a faculty member, originally intended to conduct in-person interviews with a small number of young-adult research participants located in Canada and obtained approval from his/her Research Ethics Board (REB) for this project. R later submitted an application for a significantly revised project. The changes included the number of participants (from about 15 to about 130), the type of interview (from face-to-face interviews to interactions via social media such as Twitter), and the location of participants (from Canada-only to various locations around the world, including unsafe regions of the world). The consent process for the revised research project was unclear. On this basis, the Institution’s REB requested several changes and clarifications to R’s research plan. R did not make the changes and carried on with his/her revised research plan without securing the REB’s final approval.

R in due course chose not to proceed any further with the research.

• issued a letter of reprimand to R.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period; and
• required R to reimburse the Agency for the full amount of Agency funding used in the research.

The Agency also asked the Institution to work with R to withdraw a working paper from the research record that the Institution believed to be based on data collected from participants without appropriate REB approvals in place.

R, a doctoral student, admitted to being solely responsible for intentionally fabricating and falsifying research data over a three-to-four-year period. R also admitted to failing to follow protocols for animal experiments during their training in a research lab. The Institution also assessed the overall environment in the lab, including its philosophy, protocols, processes, interaction, and culture and concluded that the lab in which R was working was being run in a highly appropriate manner in all regards. It also did not note any significant failures on the part of R’s supervisor regarding the matter. In fact, it was of the view that the lab supervisor was highly engaged and accessible and actively reviewed scientific data with all lab trainees and acted swiftly when the matter came to light.

R voluntarily withdrew from PhD program.

• R’s supervisor asked the journal to withdraw the article from its editorial systems;
• R’s supervisor reviewed and revised the archived pre-print so that all of R’s data was removed; and
• R’s supervisor withdrew an application to a federal funding Agency as the application was based partly on R’s suspect data.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of four years.

The Agency acknowledged the steps taken by the supervisor to mitigate the impact of the falsified and fabricated data.

• required R to complete the Course on Research Ethics (CORE) tutorial and provide the relevant parties within the Institution with a copy of the CORE certificate of completion;
• placed senior official’s decision letter on R’s Institutional file for a period of one year; and
• determined that although there was little likelihood that any participants were harmed by the breach, R could not use the data that was collected without ethics approval for academic purposes, including publication in academic journals.

• issued a letter of awareness to R; and
• allowed R to keep his/her grant and to propose a new project and partner to the Agency for review and approval, in accordance with rules for that funding program.

• suspended R without pay for 6 months;
• made alternate arrangements for student supervision during this time; and
• considered strategies for ensuring that R did not resume his/her previous lab management practices after returning from suspension.

• declared R ineligible to hold, participate in, or apply for Agency funding as an applicant, co-applicant or participate in any Agency grant application as a collaborator, partner or in any other capacity for a period of two years;
• declared R ineligible to participate in Agency peer review processes for the same two- year period; and
• terminated R’s active awards.