b) Allegation means information in any form forwarded to a Dean relating to possible Misconduct in Scholarly Activity.

University Policy University Procedure Instructions/Forms Integrity in Scholarly Activity Policy Classification Research Approval Authority General Faculties Council Implementation Authority Provost and Vice-President (Academic) Effective Date January 9, 1992 Table of Contents Purpose 1 Scope 2 Definitions 3 Policy Statement 4 Responsibilities 5 Related Policies 6 References 7 History 8 Latest Revision May 18, 1995 Purpose 1 This policy is designed to reflect a number of important values with respect to integrity in Scholarly Activity and to balance those values appropriately where they come into conflict. Scope 2 This policy applies to Scholarly Activity undertaken by members of the University community. Definitions 3 In this policy: a) Advisor means any person selected by the Respondent, including a person selected by The University of Calgary Faculty Association at the request of the Respondent. b) Allegation means information in any form forwarded to a Dean relating to possible Misconduct in Scholarly Activity. c) Complaint means the written charge of Misconduct forwarded by a Dean to a Committee to hold an Inquiry. d) Dean shall include the Administrative Head of a Faculty, and the Administrative Head of any Unit, whether a teaching Unit or not, in which Scholarly Activity takes place, when that Unit is neither itself a Faculty nor is part of any Faculty; and shall include the Vice-President (Academic) unless the context otherwise requires. The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 1 of 11

e) Faculty shall include any Unit in which Scholarly Activity takes place, whether a teaching Unit or not, when that Unit is not part of any Faculty. f) Gross Misconduct means Misconduct judged to be deliberate or reckless, going beyond negligence, and of sufficient gravity to justify initiation of dismissal proceedings. g) Inquiry means the informal process of gathering information for the sole purpose of determining whether or not a Complaint warrants an Investigation. h) Investigation means the more formal procedure to be followed once an Inquiry has concluded that a Complaint has sufficient potential foundation to warrant full Investigation. The Investigation will examine and evaluate the relevant facts to determine whether or not the Complaint is substantiated. i) Misconduct shall include: 1. plagiarism, the attempt to claim credit in written scholarly works for ideas, writing, research results, or methods taken from someone else; 2. fabrication or falsification of research data; 3. conflict of scholarly interest, including suppressing the publication of the work of another scholar and improper negative reviewing of a research grant application by another scholar; 4. other practices that deviate significantly from those which are commonly accepted as appropriate within the scholarly communities; 5. specific definitions or clarifications adopted by a Faculty of any matter included in clauses 1, 2 or 3 above and any other matter specifically defined by a Faculty as Misconduct in Scholarly Activity, in order to ensure proper recognition of the standards appropriate to the scholarly communities within that Faculty taking into account Codes of Professional Conduct where applicable; but Misconduct shall not include any matter involving only an honest difference of opinion or an honest error of judgment. j) Respondent means a person in respect of whom a Dean has received information relating to possible Misconduct in Scholarly Activity. k) Scholarly Activity shall include all activity that were it to be undertaken by a Faculty member would be appropriate for inclusion in an Annual Report to the President as scholarship, research (including Graduate student supervision) or other creative activity. Policy Statement 4 Preamble 4.1 There is increasing sensitivity in the academic community about integrity in Scholarly Activity and in the presentation of the results of that activity. It only takes one incident, with its attendant publicity, to The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 2 of 11

impact adversely on the credibility of a Department, a Faculty, even an entire University. As individual academics, and as members of a University, we must all share the responsibility. We cannot rely on external granting agencies, sponsors of contract research, publishers and editors, or those who are the ultimate consumers of our Scholarly Activity, to oversee the integrity of our work. Indeed, there is increasing insistence among granting agencies in particular that Universities themselves actively take and be seen to take responsibility for the integrity of the Scholarly Activity undertaken by their members. 4.2 It is too easy to dismiss these important responsibilities as being purely institutional in nature, and thus as imposing no obligations on individuals. Of course, particular individuals will have to be selected to operationalize the procedures that the institution adopts to fulfill its responsibilities. However, every member of the University community must be prepared to accept a personal share of that responsibility. This has two dimensions: first a willingness to invoke the approved procedures in any case where there is a reasonable suspicion of Misconduct in Scholarly Activity; second, a recognition by all of us that those of our colleagues who do fulfill their individual responsibility by invoking the approved procedures deserve approbation, not reprobation, for behaving responsibly in circumstances that must necessarily be difficult for all concerned. 4.3 Integrity in Scholarly Activity is already partially addressed at the University of Calgary. General Faculties Council has a standing committee structure dealing with research involving human subjects. However, the process here focuses more on the protection of the human subject than on the actual integrity of the research methodology, findings or presentation of results. Furthermore, not only does much research not involve human subjects at all but there is much Scholarly Activity that may well not fall clearly within any definition of research. There are also procedures dealing with experimentation involving animals, but these too focus on the protection of the animal subjects. Accordingly, there is a real need for the University to develop and implement a more general policy to handle concerns about integrity in Scholarly Activity. 4.4 Such a policy should start from the premise that we are committed both individually and institutionally to integrity in Scholarly Activity. Accordingly, we do not need pro-active approaches designed to monitor the proposals, implementation and results connected with Scholarly Activity. Rather, we need procedures that respond in a balanced way to concerns that are raised. The policies here proposed are designed to reflect a number of important values, and to balance those values appropriately where they come into conflict. 4.5 First, while we all have a fundamental commitment to integrity in the conduct of Scholarly Activity, there will necessarily be diversity of perspective within a discipline about the dimensions of scholarly The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 3 of 11

integrity. Further, it would indeed be startling if different disciplines did not have differing collective visions of what is and what is not acceptable or appropriate. Accordingly, while there must be Universitywide policies reflecting certain minimum standards, practical development and implementation of those policies must be largely at the Faculty level. 4.6 Second, we need procedures that ensure fairness to those whose integrity is brought into question. In particular, strict confidentiality for Respondents must be assured to minimize the damage that can be done by aspersions on scholarly integrity that are ultimately not substantiated. A related value that the procedures must reflect is that of speedy Investigation and disposition of Complaints, so that scholarly reputations are not damaged by clouds of suspicion. Finally, there must be a proper balance in the allocation of the University's human resources to ensure that Complaints are fully investigated without making unreasonable demands on the time of busy scholars. 4.7 Third, there is a need to protect those who set the process in motion or otherwise assist in dealing with Complaints. This will involve assurances of confidentiality or even anonymity where appropriate, together with institutional reaffirmation of the impropriety of any form of retaliation against those persons. On the other hand, we must guard against the risk of confidentiality and anonymity becoming cloaks for malice or injustice. In this respect, we are particularly concerned with the possibility that there may be an absence of reasonable factual foundation for a Complaint. The balance we seek is one that recognizes that the values of confidentiality and anonymity may have to yield to the equally important values in any case where evidence of scholarly Misconduct is only capable of proper evaluation if the source of the Allegation is clearly identified. In this way we seek to offer encouragement and support to those whose sincere concern for scholarly integrity leads them to become involved in a Complaint, while yet both protecting scholarly reputations from unfounded smears and protecting us all from the dangers of damaging public litigation. 4.8 Fourth, we need policies that are sensitive to the reality that Misconduct in Scholarly Activity can be almost infinitely various in both nature and cause. This means that the policies and procedures must be capable of responding realistically to a continuum of culpability that might range from an honest but mistaken view of the propriety of a particular practice, through behaviour that exhibits various degrees of carelessness or negligence, to the extreme case of calculated plagiarism or fraud. Some variation in procedure is surely appropriate at least at the level of final disposition of a Complaint to reflect the diversity that necessarily inheres in the concept of Misconduct in Scholarly Activity. Finally, it must always be remembered that the range of dispositions available is designed to preserve the integrity and reputation of the University and not to provide personal redress for aggrieved individuals. The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 4 of 11

Faculty Guidelines 4.9 Each Faculty shall develop guidelines and appropriate definitions relating to Misconduct in Scholarly Activity, which shall not be inconsistent with the definitions herein. 4.10 Each Faculty shall develop guidelines for the retention of original data and material products relating to Scholarly Activity for a reasonable period following publication or presentation, that is, until it is apparent that it is no longer reasonable to anticipate any question answerable only by reference to such data or material products. These guidelines shall also seek to prevent the destruction of original data or material products for the purpose of thwarting an actual or impending Inquiry or Investigation. 4.11 Each Faculty shall develop guidelines relating to authorship of published or presented work. Each person named as an author shall have made a significant contribution to the work, shall have approved the final form of the work to the extent individual expertise allows, and shall share in responsibility for the work as published or presented. 4.12 All the Guidelines referred to above shall be approved by the Faculty Council or its equivalent of the Unit involved, and shall then be filed with the Vice-President (Research & International). Application of Procedures 4.13 These procedures apply to all Allegations and Complaints of Misconduct in Scholarly Activity against any person holding an appointment governed by the University Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal, and also apply with such variations as are necessary to Complaints against persons holding Post-Doctoral Fellowships or their equivalent. Allegations against students are governed by the existing procedures dealing with Academic Misconduct. Allegations 4.14 All Allegations shall be forwarded to the Dean of the Faculty in which the Respondent holds an appointment. 4.15 Where the Respondent holds appointments in more than one Faculty, the Dean is the Dean of the Faculty in which the majority of the Respondent's duties are performed, but there shall be consultation between the Deans of the Faculties in question. 4.16 Where there is more than one Respondent and not all are from the same Faculty, the Deans of the Faculties in question shall refer the matter to the Vice-President (Academic) who shall then be responsible for ensuring that these procedures are followed with such variations as are necessary. 4.17 Where a Respondent is also a Dean, all Allegations shall in respect of all Respondents be forwarded to the Vice-President (Academic). The Vice- The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 5 of 11

President (Academic) shall then be responsible for ensuring that these procedures are followed with such variations as are necessary. Deans' Responsibilities 4.18 A Dean or the Vice-President (Academic) may delegate any function specified in these procedures but is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the procedures are complied with, and that all Allegations and Complaints are properly investigated, documented and disposed of. However, where a Dean personally formulates the Complaint in writing, the Vice-President (Academic) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this provision. Complaints 4.19 On receipt of an Allegation of possible Misconduct in Scholarly Activity the Dean shall determine if it is possible to formulate a Complaint in writing. Such a Complaint may be formulated by any person who has reviewed the relevant documentation, including the Dean. If for any reason a Complaint in writing cannot be formulated no further steps shall be taken against the Respondent under these Procedures. 4.20 A Complaint in writing shall identify the person or persons who made the Allegations leading to the formulation of the Complaint if it appears to the Dean that the evidence supporting the Complaint might reasonably require such identification for its proper evaluation, and in any event the Complaint shall contain sufficient detail to enable the Respondent to understand the matter that is to be inquired into. 4.21 Where the documentation in support of the Complaint reasonably requires knowledge of the identity of any person who caused it to be forwarded to the Dean for its proper evaluation, no Complaint in writing shall be valid unless it identifies that person. However, no such person shall be identified unless that person has expressly so agreed. Inquiries 4.22 As soon as possible after a Complaint has been formulated in writing, and in any event within ten days of receipt of an Allegation, the Dean shall send a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent, to the Vice- President (Academic), and to a Committee of three persons to conduct an Inquiry. 4.23 The Dean shall forthwith upon sending a Complaint to a Committee to conduct an Inquiry advise the Respondent of the composition of that Committee, and shall also so advise any person who is identified in the Complaint. 4.24 Any objection to the composition of the Committee to conduct an Inquiry shall be made to the Dean within seven days. The Dean's disposition of any such objection shall be final. 4.25 The Committee to conduct an Inquiry shall consist of a Chair who shall The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 6 of 11

normally be a senior person from the Faculty in question, and who may have been previously designated as the Standing Chair; and two other persons who shall normally be senior academics who may be from outside the Faculty with the requisite expertise to address the issues involved. 4.26 The Committee to conduct an Inquiry shall proceed informally and in complete confidentiality to determine whether or not the Complaint warrants an Investigation. The Respondent, accompanied by an advisor if the Respondent so desires, shall be invited to address the Committee at the commencement of its work, and to make submissions in writing. Thereafter the Respondent may attend other meetings of the Committee only by invitation of the Chair until the Committee has received all the information or submissions it deems appropriate. 4.27 Prior to meeting to consider its decision, the Committee shall advise the Respondent in sufficient detail of the evidence being considered by the Committee and shall invite the Respondent, accompanied by an advisor if the Respondent so desires, to meet with it and respond to that evidence orally and/or in writing. 4.28 Prior to receiving evidence from any person not already identified in the Complaint in writing, the Committee shall advise that person that it may be necessary in the interests of justice to reveal that person's identity to the Respondent. 4.29 Within thirty days of being appointed, the Committee shall complete its Inquiry and shall determine whether or not it finds that the Complaint warrants an Investigation. The Committee may recommend to the Dean a way to resolve a situation that does not warrant an Investigation - e.g. carelessness. Its decision shall be reported in writing to the Dean, and shall at all times be the confidential property of the Dean of the Faculty in question. The Committee shall also provide the Dean with the information used to reach its decision, which the Dean shall convey to any Committee of Investigation. 4.30 If the Committee reports that the Complaint does not warrant an Investigation, the Dean shall advise the Respondent, any person identified in the Complaint and the Vice-President (Academic) that the Complaint is dismissed. Investigations 4.31 If the Committee reports that the Complaint does warrant an Investigation, the Dean shall so advise the Respondent, any person identified in the Complaint and the Vice-President (Academic) and shall inform them comprehensively in writing of that which is to be investigated. 4.32 Upon being advised that there is a Complaint warranting an Investigation the Dean shall within 10 days appoint a Committee to The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 7 of 11

conduct the Investigation, and shall forthwith thereafter advise the Respondent of the composition of that Committee, and shall also so advise any person who is identified in the Complaint or who was identified to the Respondent during the Inquiry as a person who had given evidence. 4.33 Any objection to the composition of the Committee to conduct an Investigation shall be made to the Dean within seven days. The Dean's disposition of any such objection shall be final. 4.34 The Committee to conduct an Investigation shall consist of a Chair and two members who shall be senior academics who did not serve on the Committee to conduct an Inquiry, and who have sufficient expertise to address the issues involved. Whenever possible, members of the Committee shall, in a departmentalized Faculty, be from a Department other than that to which the Respondent belongs, and in an nondepartmentalized Faculty shall be from another Faculty or from outside the University. 4.35 In addition a representative of the Executive of The University of Calgary Faculty Association shall be present as a participating but non-voting member of the Committee to conduct an Investigation. 4.36 The Committee to conduct an Investigation shall invite the Respondent, accompanied by an advisor if the Respondent so desires, to address it and make submissions in writing prior to its seeking or obtaining any other information or submissions. Thereafter, the Respondent may attend other meetings of the Committee only by invitation of the Chair until the Committee has received all the information or submissions it deems appropriate. 4.37 The Committee to conduct an Investigation shall provide the opportunity for a person who made an Allegation leading to the Complaint, accompanied by an advisor, if desired, to address it in speech or in writing. If that person chooses to participate in the process and to be kept informed of the status of the Investigation, the Committee may comply with the request. Moreover, if that person chooses to participate in the process, that individual shall also agree to respect the confidentiality of the process. 4.38 Prior to meeting to consider its decision, the Committee shall advise the Respondent in sufficient detail of the evidence being considered by the Committee and shall invite the Respondent, accompanied by an advisor if the Respondent so desires, to meet with it and respond fully to that evidence orally and/or in writing. 4.39 Prior to receiving evidence from any person not already identified in the Complaint in writing or identified to the Respondent during the Inquiry, the Committee shall advise that person that it may be necessary in the interests of justice to reveal that person's identity to the Respondent. The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 8 of 11

4.40 Within ninety days of being appointed, the Committee shall complete its Investigation and shall report its reasoned decision in writing to the Dean. That reasoned decision shall at all times be the confidential property of the Dean of the Faculty in question. The chair of the Committee shall also send a copy of the reasoned decision to the Respondent at the same time as it is forwarded to the Dean. No person shall make any use of the reasoned decision or any part thereof save for the purposes of these Procedures or for related purposes under the University Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal and the Collective Agreement. 4.41 The Committee shall advise the Dean of the disposition of the Complaint. That advice shall take one of three forms: a) that the Respondent is not guilty of Misconduct as defined in this document and the Complaint should be dismissed; b) that the Complaint is substantiated, in whole or in part, and the Respondent is guilty of Misconduct as defined in this document that can be appropriately dealt with under the existing disciplinary powers of the Dean; c) that the Complaint is substantiated in whole or in part, and the Respondent is guilty of Gross Misconduct as defined in this document. 4.42 The Dean shall, upon receipt of notification of the disposition of the Complaint, forthwith as appropriate: a) advise the Respondent, any person identified to the Respondent, and the Vice-President (Academic) that the Complaint is dismissed; b) advise the Respondent, any person identified to the Respondent, and the Vice-President (Academic) that the Complaint is substantiated as Misconduct which can appropriately be dealt with under the existing disciplinary powers of the Dean; c) advise the Respondent, any person identified to the Respondent, and the Vice-President (Academic) that the Complaint is substantiated as Gross Misconduct in Scholarly Activity, and refer the matter to the President for further proceedings in accordance with the University Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal. 4.43 Where the Complaint is not substantiated, the Dean in consultation with the Respondent and the Committee that conducted the Investigation shall take all reasonable steps to repair any damage that the Respondent's reputation for scholarly integrity may have suffered by virtue of the Complaint. 4.44 Whatever the outcome, the Dean shall also take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences of the process for individuals who have been unintentionally adversely affected by it. Appeals The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 9 of 11

4.45 A Respondent adversely affected by any decision under or consequent upon paragraph 4.41 of these Procedures may proceed in accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement between The Governors of The University of Calgary and The University of Calgary Faculty Association (the Collective Agreement), or in accordance with the University procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal, as appropriate. Notification of Funding Agencies 4.46 When a Committee that has conducted an Inquiry reports to the Dean that an Investigation is warranted, the Dean shall inform any granting agency or sponsor of the Scholarly Activity in question of this fact whenever that granting agency or sponsor had so requested at the time the grant was made, or so requires by its policies as they existed at the time of the grant or sponsorship, and shall notify the Vice-President (Research & International). 4.47 When a Committee that has conducted an Investigation reports its conclusions to the Dean, the Dean shall inform any granting agency or sponsor that has already been informed under clause 4.46 of the conclusion. Further, where the decision is that Gross Misconduct is substantiated, the Dean shall inform any granting agency or sponsor known to have provided support for the Scholarly Activity in question of that conclusion, and may inform such other persons or agencies as it seems essential to inform in the interests of protecting the integrity of Scholarly Activity. The Vice-President (Research & International) shall also be notified. 4.48 Where a Respondent disciplined under paragraphs 7.41(b) or 7.41(c) has proceeded with a grievance or arbitration the President shall inform any granting agency, sponsor, person or agency that has already been informed under paragraphs 4.46 and 4.47 of the result of that grievance or arbitration. Institutional Responsibility 4.49 Whenever an Investigation concludes that Gross Misconduct is substantiated, appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that all other Scholarly Activity previously undertaken by the Respondent at this University is evaluated to determine its integrity. Time Limits 4.50 All time limits in these procedures may be extended for good reason of which a formal record is kept. The Respondent shall be advised of both the extension of time and the reasons therefore. Responsibilities 5 Please see section 4 for responsibilities Related Policies 6 University Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal Academic Misconduct Procedures Code of Professional Conduct The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 10 of 11

References 7 Tricouncil Statement on Integrity In Research And Scholarship: The National Granting Councils, MRC, NSERC, and SSHRC, have issued a joint statement on Integrity in Research and Scholarship. The statement appears in the NSERC Program Guide and is posted on the SSHRC web site. In addition, the SSHRC has established Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research and Scholarly Misconduct. Researchers working with funds from any of the three Councils should consult the statement. History 8 At the request of the Vice-President (Research & International), the Policy was developed by a special subcommittee of the Research Policy Committee (RPC) appointed in 1989. The subcommittee reviewed other institution's arrangements, consulted with the University community including both Deans' Council and the Faculty Association, reporting with a draft policy to the RPC in 1991. The draft was reviewed and refined by the RPC, considered and refined by the University Planning Committee (UPC) which recommended its adoption to the GFC. GFC considered the document on two occasions, incorporating additional refinements and approved a final version in January of 1992. In 1993, issues arising from experience with the policy were referred to the RPC by the Vice-President (Academic). These were examined by the Committee including consultations with Deans and the Faculty Association. The Committee delivered its advice in the form of suggested amendments to UPC in late 1994; refinements were made by UPC, which recommended policy changes to the GFC. These were approved by the GFC in May of 1995. Neither the policy nor subsequent amendments required Board of Governor approval but were reported to the Board, for information. Approved by the General Faculties Council, 9 January, 1992. Amended by the General Faculties Council, 18 May, 1995. The electronic version is the official version of this policy. Page 11 of 11