[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-253312-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-253312-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","research-misconduct-investigation-report-template1-appendix-c-phs-policy","Research Misconduct Investigation Report Template1 - Appendix C - PHS Policy","","This appendix provides a structured template for preparing an institutional investigation report regarding allegations of research misconduct. It guides the report’s Background, Allegations, and PHS Support sections, including required details such as involved individuals, relevant dates, and the research or grant support tied to falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism. It also specifies how institutional inquiry and evidence sequestration should be documented, followed by detailed analysis and conclusions aligned with PHS definitions and investigation-stage determinations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/","General",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/research-misconduct-investigation-report-template1-appendix-c-phs-policy/253312/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/research-misconduct-investigation-report-template1-appendix-c-phs-policy/253312.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Himbo","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-13",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What information should be included in the Background section of the investigation report?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The Background should include facts leading to the institutional inquiry, a description of the research at issue, the individuals involved, the complainant’s role, associated public health issues, and all relevant dates, including when allegations were received.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How should allegations be documented in the Allegations section?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"All allegations raised by the complainant and any additional allegations that arose during the inquiry/investigation should be listed, with the source and basis for each allegation cited to form the structure for later analysis and findings.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What analysis and conclusions must align with the PHS definition of research misconduct?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The analysis should consider statements, rebuttals, documents, and evidence, cite sources, address respondent defenses, assess credibility and inconsistencies, and describe evidence for knowing, intentional, or reckless misconduct versus honest error or differences of scientific opinion. Conclusions should follow the inquiry and investigation pathways as specified.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},253312,1789265294,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,118,123],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":124,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":26},687197100911,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a000239b6f1da00475?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1785132997149421697","Investigation Report Template1  \nI. Background  \nInclude sufficient background information to ensure a full understanding of the issues that concern PHSunder its definition of research misconduct.2 This section should detail the facts leading to the institutional inquiry, including a description of the research at issue, the individuals involved in the alleged misconduct, the role of the complainant, and any associated public health issues. All relevant dates, including the date the institution received the allegations, should be included.  \nII. Allegations  \nList all the allegations of research misconduct raised by the complainant and any additional research misconduct allegations that arose during the inquiry/investigation. The source and basis for each allegation should be cited. The allegations identified in this section will form the structure or context in which the subsequent analysis and findings are presented.  \nIII. PHS Support  \nA. For each allegation of research misconduct under the PHS definition, identify the PHS support for the research at issue or the report (e.g., publication) or the grant application containing the alleged falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism. In addition, identify any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal Agencies, per § 93 .313(f)(6) .  \nB. If the alleged research misconduct occurred more than six years before the date the institution received the initial allegation of research misconduct, identify any exceptions to the six-year limitation under 42 C. F. R. § 93. 105(b), including respondent’s subsequent use, if any, that meets the requirements of § 93 . 105(b)(1) .  \nIV. Institutional Inquiry: Process and Recommendations  \nA. Summarize the earlier inquiry process, including the composition of the inquiry committee (including names, degrees, departmental affiliation, and expertise), date of appointment, and the charge to the committee. List the individuals interviewed, the evidence sequestered, the evidence reviewed at the inquiry stage, and the measures taken to ensure its security; the policies and procedures used (or a citation to the pertinent section of the institution’s policies and procedures); and any other factors that may have influenced the proceedings (non-responsive or cooperative respondent, complainant, or witnesses; difficultly in sequestering or examining evidence; institutional procedural issues, etc. ) .  \n1 This Inquiry and Investigation Report Template was composed using the Office of Research Integrity’s Inquiry and Investigation Report Outline. [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/Outline%20for%20Inquiry](https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/Outline%20for%20Inquiry)Investigation%20Reports%2002-21-2020.pdf  \nB. Describe in detail how evidence, including electronic evidence such as hard drives, was sequestered. Please see “Submitting Electronic Records to ORI” for helpful information about sequestration.  \nV. Institutional Inquiry/Investigation: Analysis (for each allegation)  \nA. Background: Describe the particular matter (e.g., experiment or component of a laboratory/ clinical research protocol) in which the alleged misconduct occurred and why and how the issue came to be under inquiry/investigation.  \nB. Analysis  \n1. The analysis of each allegation should take into account all of the relevant statements, claims (e.g., a claim of a significant positive result in an experiment), rebuttals, documents, and other evidence, including circumstantial evidence, related to the allegation. The source of each statement, claim, or other evidence should be cited (e.g., computer laptop, desktop, external hard drive, or server, including file folder names and locations; laboratory notebook with page numbers and dates; clinical research documentation and dates; relevant manuscripts or grant applications; emails; transcripts of interviews; etc. ) .  \n2. Any use of additional expe","cbCaiddiDegsqdnW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiddiDegsqdnW","pdf",257786,"English","# Investigation Report Template\n## Background\n## Allegations\n## PHS Support\n## Institutional Inquiry: Process and Recommendations\n## Institutional Inquiry/Investigation: Analysis\n## Conclusions","[{\"question\":\"What information should be included in the Background section of the investigation report?\",\"answer\":\"The Background should include facts leading to the institutional inquiry, a description of the research at issue, the individuals involved, the complainant’s role, associated public health issues, and all relevant dates, including when allegations were received.\"},{\"question\":\"How should allegations be documented in the Allegations section?\",\"answer\":\"All allegations raised by the complainant and any additional allegations that arose during the inquiry/investigation should be listed, with the source and basis for each allegation cited to form the structure for later analysis and findings.\"},{\"question\":\"What analysis and conclusions must align with the PHS definition of research misconduct?\",\"answer\":\"The analysis should consider statements, rebuttals, documents, and evidence, cite sources, address respondent defenses, assess credibility and inconsistencies, and describe evidence for knowing, intentional, or reckless misconduct versus honest error or differences of scientific opinion. Conclusions should follow the inquiry and investigation pathways as specified.\"}]","Research Misconduct Investigation Report Template1 - Appendix C - PHS Policy | PDF"]