Respondent and Complainant – Standard Operating Procedures

ERIK, Office of Research Compliance, Revised 02/04/2026

Regulatory and Policy Authority and Requirement

The Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 C.F.R. Part 93 (the “PHS Policies”), define the Respondent and Complainant as follows:

The Research Misconduct policy (the "Policy"), defines Respondent and Complainant as follows:

The Policy provides certain rights to Respondents throughout a research misconduct proceeding. Specifically, the Respondent will be:

• provided notice when an assessment moves into an inquiry;
• notified that there is no duty to provide oral or written statements;
• notified of the experts involved in the inquiry and investigation committee members;
• interviewed during an investigation;
• provided with access to all evidence, including transcripts of any witness interviews;
• provided with a preliminary inquiry report or investigation report for comment, and the final inquiry and investigation reports, including all documentary evidence;
• notified of the final Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) decision regarding the inquiry, including whether the IDO had remanded the decision of the inquiry back to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) and any expert for reconsideration;
• allowed to appeal to the IDO if the inquiry decision is to move on to an investigation.

The RIO will work with the dean of the college of the potential respondent(s). If a faculty respondent has an appointment in more than one college, the RIO will inform the dean of the college, or the department chair, of the faculty respondent’s tenure initiating unit.

If a complaint is received that does not name a specific respondent, (e.g., if the allegations are related to specific figures in a published paper), the RIO will determine during the assessment, to the extent possible, the roles and responsibilities of the individuals involved in the questioned research in order to name a respondent. In the absence of a specific named respondent and any credible information to assign individual responsibilities, the RIO may identify potential respondents as the senior and/or corresponding author and the first author of the publication, or the PI as defined on the ePA 005 for a grant or other agreement. In such cases, the individual(s) who may be responsible for the potential research misconduct in  
question will be determined during the inquiry.

The Policy provides certain rights to Complainants throughout a research misconduct proceeding. Specifically, the Complainant:

• may be interviewed during an inquiry 
• will be interviewed during an investigation;
• may be provided with the relevant sections of the preliminary inquiry report specific to their allegation(s), and/or the relevant sections of the final inquiry report, or other written notice of the inquiry outcome; the inquiry reports without the documentary evidence, will be redacted as needed;
• will be notified of the final Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) decision regarding the inquiry;
• will be allowed to appeal to the IDO if the inquiry decision is that a complaint is to be dismissed and not move on to an investigation;
• will be notified of the final outcome of the investigation relevant to the Complainant’s allegation(s).

The Complainant may be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the University before any information from a research misconduct proceeding is provided to the Complainant. The University is not required to provide notice or reports as described above if the Complainant is anonymous or uses a pseudonym. If a Complainant is known, but requests confidentiality, the identity of the Complainant will not be revealed to anyone involved in the research misconduct proceedings.