Faculty members are expected to participate in scholarly and research activities which enhance
their professional development and contribute to their disciplines. An assessment of these
activities will be included in the annual review of the faculty member.
312.02.01 Policy Recommendations on Research
Research is an investigative activity oriented toward the development of new knowledge, creative cultural and artistic expressions, or innovative scholarship.
Whereas research is one of the primary functions of Georgia State University and is necessary for support of the instructional and service programs at GSU, the Research Committee makes the following policy recommendations.
A. Elevation of the administrative position for research to a higher level in the administrative structure.
B. Allocation of a defined percent effort for research. It is recommended that faculty active in scholarship and research be assigned a minimum of 1/3 effort in the scholarship and research area. Measures should be taken to ensure that other activities do not encroach on the time assigned for research.
C. Establishment of a University Research Foundation dedicated for support of research and scholarship.
D. 1. Allocation of increased funds for graduate research assistantships.
2. Establishment of an ad hoc senate committee to define the various categories of graduate assistantships at GSU needed and to recommend funding levels.
E. Allocation of increased funds for support of faculty research during summer. Each college should expand these funds and the college faculty should establish procedures for allocation of summer research funds.
F. Increased allocation of funds for equipment, including departmental based computing equipment.
(Source: University Senate Resolution, May 21, 1987)
312.02.02 Copyright Policy
312.02.03 Intellectual Property Policy
312.02.04 Human Subjects Protection
The Georgia State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) is the official review board for university projects that involve the use of humans as research subjects. It is the policy of the IRB to ensure protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects in research, in accordance with GSU rules and with federal regulations in Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 46, "Protection of Human Subjects."
This policy applies to:
1. Research conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent of Georgia State University in connection with his or her institutional responsibilities (regardless of the location of the project);
2. Research using any property or facility of Georgia State University;
3. Research involving the use of GSU's non-public information to identify or contact human research subjects or perspective subjects;
4. Research that satisfies a requirement imposed by the University for a degree program or for the completion of a course of study;
5. Is certified by a dean or department head to satisfy an obligation of a faculty appointment at the University, including clinical or adjunct appointments.
This policy applies only to research with human subjects, defined as follows (45 CFR 46.102):
1. "research" is a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge; and
2. "human subjects" are live individuals about whom the researcher obtains:
a. data through intervention or interaction, or
b. identifiable private information.
In reviewing proposals under this policy, the IRB will consider the following (45 CFR 46.111):
1. Risks to subjects are minimized.
2. Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipatee benefits, if any , to subjects and the importance of the knowledge that may be expected as a result.
3. Selection of subjects is equitable.
4. Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative in accordance with and to the extent required by 45 CFR 46.116.
5. Informed consent will be appropriately documents in accordance with and to the extent required by 45 CFR 46.117.
6. When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provisions for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.
7. When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of the data.
B. Procedures for Researchers
1. Submitting proposals for review.
b. Continuing research projects must be reviewed at least once a year. For continuing review the renewal application must be completed in the IRB's electronic submission program.
c. A study closure application must be submitted once the study and data analysis are complete. The study closure can be completed through the IRB's electronic submission program.
2. Informed consent.
ii. a description of reasonably foreweeable risks or discomforts;
iii. a description of benefits that the subject or others might reasonably expect;
iv. a disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or treatments, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject;
v. a statement describing the extent to which confidentiality will be maintained;
vi. for research involving more thatn minimal reisk, an explanation as to whether any compensation or medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what this consists of or where further information can be obtained;
vii. an explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subject's rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject; and
viii. a statement that participation is voluntary, refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled.
b. The IRB may waive or modify the above elements of informed consent (CFR 46.116(d)).
c. Subjects usually sign concent forms, but written consent is not always required. The IRB may waive the requirement of signed consent. Waiving the requirement for written consent does not waive the requirement for consent itself. If a consent form will not be used, the research must explain to the IRB how infomred consent will be obtained. The IRB may wiave the requirement for signed consent form if (CFR 46.117)):
ii. the research presents no more than minimal risk and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside the research context.
d. With children, parental permission must be obtained from a parent or parents, and assent must be obtained from the child. "Children" are defined as persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research. "Assent" is defined as an affirmative agreement to participate; (mere failure to object is not enough). With older children, assent is usually written; with younger children, assent is usually oral.
(Source: Vice President for Research, October 24, 2006)
312.02.05 Review and Approval Procedures for Sponsored Grants and Contracts
A formal proposal to conduct a research, public service, or training project with support from a external agency represents an offer by the Georgia State University acting as an agency of the State of Georgia. It is necessary, therefore, that any such proposal have the endorsement of those individuals responsible for carrying out the project as well as those individuals authorized to commit the University to a legal offer. A review and routing procedure has been established in order to ensure that each proposal or application for sponsored research or training has been reviewed and endorsed by the various responsible persons and that there is compliance with both sponsor, University, and State policies. All proposals must be submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs.
A. Internal Routing and Review
Each proposal must be accompanied by a Routing Form (available at the Office of Sponsored Programs). The Routing Form will bear appropriate endorsement signatures before submission to the Office of Sponsored Programs. In the case of a proposal which involves faculty members from different departments and/or colleges, it is necessary to secure signatures from each area. Proposals are routed from the principal investigator to the department chair, the dean, and finally to the Office of Sponsored Programs. Most sponsors require a specific number of copies of the formal proposal to be submitted along with one or more signed copies. If more than one original signed copy is required, please notify the Office of Sponsored Programs staff at the time the proposal is submitted. The Office of Sponsored Programs must receive all copies of the proposal that are required by the agency to contain original signatures and two additional copies for the Office of Sponsored Programs' files.
The individuals and/or offices involved in the internal review and processing are as follows:
B. Lead Time Requirement
Lead time required for review of a proposal varies with its size, complexity, completeness, accuracy and care taken in its preparation and prior review. It also depends upon the amount of work already in the Office of Sponsored Programs and the staff available when it is received. To allow for necessary corrections and revisions and for greater assurance that sponsor deadline will be met, allow at least five working days for the Office of Sponsored Programs to review the proposal. Proposals which contain unconventional or unique features including cost sharing commitments, conditions that necessitate legal review, etc., may require additional lead time.
C. Project Personnel
All appropriate University guidelines and procedures must be followed in the development of percent effort and time commitments of personnel listed in grant and contract proposals. Particular attention should be given to restrictions related to affirmative action regulations, job titles, and wage and salary ranges. Detailed information is available from the Office of Human Resources, the Office of Grants and Contracts and the Office of Sponsored Programs.
The budget serves to identify the cost of the project to the sponsor and it is an indicator of the magnitude of the project. The budget also serves as a further measure of the project director's capabilities since there must be a reasonable correlation between the project as described and the principal investigator's assessment of the various cost elements. The budget must always include a listing of all the direct costs and indirect costs. Examples of budgets and appropriate forms may be obtained from the Office of Sponsored Programs.
E. Direct Cost, Fringe Benefit Rates and Indirect Costs
Direct costs are costs that can be distinctly identified as benefitting the project, such as salaries and fringe benefits, equipment, supplies, travel, and computer time. Fringe benefits require a separate category in the budget and should not be combined with salaries. The rate includes the University's contribution to Social Security, retirement programs and health insurance. Allowable indirect costs and fringe benefits are established yearly.
Indirect costs or overhead costs are those expenses that are incurred by the University through the
cost of facilities maintenance and operation, and research administration expenses. The rates vary
and are subject to change. Additional Information is available from the Office of Grants and
Contracts and/or the Office of Sponsored Programs.
(Source: Vice President for Research, August 6, 1996)
Indirect costs recovered from external grants or contracts at the fixed or maximum rate allowed by the sponsor will be evenly divided by the University and the Department/Institute generating the funds. Required cost sharing will not be deducted from the indirect.
If a department/institute negotiates a lower rate with a sponsor, for other than required cost sharing purposes, the University's share will remain 50% of the maximum rate allowed by the sponsor.
There will be a minimum of $1000 annually in the indirect cost recovery to the department/institute for the unit to receive its share. [Approved by the University Senate: 12/5/02]
312.02.06 Research and Scholarly Misconduct
A. Purpose of this Policy
This policy is adopted in compliance with various federal laws, regulations and policies dealing with misconduct in research. (For example, the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 289b) and Public Health Service (PHS) regulations to be promulgated pursuant to that Act. Also see Nati onal Science Foundation regulation at 45 CFR Part 689.) These laws, regulations and policies require universities receiving federal funds to establish administrative procedures for reviewing allegations of misconduct in connection with research. This policy pertains to all research (including federally funded research) conducted at Georgia State University (hereinafter "research"). The Office of the Vice President for Research is responsible for implementing this policy and for acting as liaison with external agencies and/or individuals making allegations.
Georgia State University pursues knowledge through research and transmits knowledge through teaching, publication and public service. A spirit of mutual respect and a broad trust that all faculty members, staff members, and students share in this dedication are essential to the functioning of the University.
Nevertheless, from time to time, a member of the University community may appear to have disregarded the accepted norms of professional behavior. The integrity of the program of the University requires that faculty, staff, and students demand high standards of conduct for themselves and others, and that appropriate sanctions will be imposed when misconduct has occurred. The reputations of those ultimately cleared of charges will be restored to the fullest extent possible. Allegations of misconduct must be resolved in a prompt and just manner, assuring no recriminations will befall a person making allegations in good faith.
B. Definition of Misconduct
For purposes of this policy, "Misconduct in Research" means the commitment of fraud in research. It includes: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism of research publications, theft of research data from others, or other practices which seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretation or judgments of data. (42 CFR 50.102).
Furthermore, this definition includes violations of University policy pertaining to research, including: the failure to obtain proper review and approval by the university committees responsible for research involving human subjects, animal subjects, radioactive materials, or other biohazards as well as the failure to comply with rules and guidelines set forth by the committees responsible for these areas.
This definition is not intended to stifle creativity, to hinder the development of new empirical techniques, or to impede attempts to validate unconventional or revolutionary theories, nor is it intended to bring within the policy those aspects of research that may form a basis for legitimate disagreement. In short, the definition is not intended, nor should it be construed, as an attempt to institutionalize scientific conformity. Rather, it aims to discourage those practices which are specifically antithetical to the ideals of research.
This policy applies to every faculty member, staff member, employee, subcontractor, consultant or student engaged in research. Other sorts of reprehensible behavior (such as sexual harassment or misappropriation of funds) not uniquely related to research are considered outside the purview of this policy but may be covered by other policies of Georgia State University or by state or federal laws.
D. Filing An Allegation or Seeking Informal Advice
Any individual may consult with the Vice President for Research about possible misconduct in research. Such consultation shall be kept confidential to the extent permissible by law. Individuals who observe misconduct in research are required to file a written complaint, and submit it to the Vice President for Research. Upon receiving a complaint, the Vice President for Research shall have the following options:
1. Determine that the complaint is insufficient, and take no action
2. Refer the matter to the student judicial process, if appropriate
3. Refer the matter to the Office of Human Resources, if appropriate
4. Conduct a review of the complaint
E. Review of the Complaint
The Review of the Complaint shall be conducted by the Vice President for Research, and shall consist of the following:
1. Initial Inquiry: The Vice President for Research shall review the written complaint and determine whether probable cause exists to conduct a formal investigation. If the Vice President for Research agrees that probable cause has been established, then a formal investigation shall be conducted. If the Vice President for Research determines that no probable cause exists, he shall communicate this in writing to the accuser and the matter shall be closed.
2. Formal Investigation: If the Vice President for Research elects to conduct a formal investigation, he shall ask the President of the University to appoint a three-member ad hoc committee to conduct the formal investigation. The Vice President for Research will be a member of the committee, and will serve as Chairperson. The committee shall follow the procedures section of this policy as it conducts its investigation.
The following procedures shall be used in conducting the formal investigation. The formal investigation committee shall:
1. Inquire immediately into an allegation or other evidence of possible misconduct. An inquiry must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. A written report shall be prepared which describes the evidence reviewed, summarizes relevant interviews, and includes the conclusions of the investigation. The individual or individuals against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the report of the inquiry. If the accused comments on that report, those comments may be included as part of the record. If the investigation requires longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60) day period. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(1))
2. Protect, to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of those who in good faith report apparent misconduct. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(2))
3. Afford the affected individual(s) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible, a prompt and thorough investigation, and an opportunity to comment on allegations and findings of the inquiry and/or the investigation (42 CFR 50.103(d)(3)(d))
4. Notify the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), a component of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, (NIH), when, on the basis of the initial inquiry, the institution determines that an investigation is warranted, or prior to the decision to initiate an investigation if the conditions listed below exist:
a. there is an immediate hazard involved;
b. there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
c. there is an immediate need to protect the interest of the person(s) making the allegation or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
d. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
e. there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance, the institution must inform OSI within twenty-four (24) hours of obtaining that information. OSI will immediately notify the Office the Inspector General. (42 CFR 50 103 (d)(4)(5))
At a minimum, the notification should include the names of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation, and the Public Health Service (PHS) application or grant number(s) involved. (42 CFR 50.104(a)(1))
5. Maintain sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted, if necessary.
6. Begin the formal investigation within thirty (30) days of the completion of the initial inquiry, if probable cause is found. The formal investigation normally will include examination of all documentation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence and memoranda of telephone calls. Whenever possible, interviews should be conducted with all individuals involved in making the allegation and against whom the allegation is made, as well as other individuals who might have information regarding key aspects of the allegation. Complete summaries of these interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed parties for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(7))
7. Secure necessary and appropriate expertise to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence and any inquiry or investigation. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(8))
8. Take precautions against real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in the inquiry or investigation. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(9))
9. Prepare and maintain the documentation to substantiate the investigation's findings. This documentation is to be made available to the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity of the National Institutes of Heath, who will decide whether that office will either proceed with its own investigation or will act on the institution's findings.
10. Take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the federal financial assistance are carried out. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(11))
11. Keep the OSI apprised of any developments during the course of the investigation which disclose facts which may affect current or potential PHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(12))
12. Undertake diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed, and also undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(13))
13. Complete the formal investigation within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the initial inquiry. Completion of the investigation shall include conducting the investigation, preparing the report of the finding, making the report available for comment by the subjects of the investigation, and submitting the report to the OSI. If they can be identified, the person(s) who raised the allegation should be provided with those portions of the report that address their role and opinions in the investigation. (42 (CFR 50.104.(d)(14))
14. Impose appropriate sanctions on individuals when the allegation of misconduct has been substantiated. ( 41 CFR 50.103(d)(14))
15. Notify the OSI of the final outcome of the investigation. (42 CFR 50.103(d)(15)) If the University plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all requirements outlined above, a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, shall be prepared. Such report shall be supplied to the relevant funding agency in accordance with federal regulations. (42 CFR 50.104(a)(3))
A report of any investigation conducted shall be prepared which shall describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, how and from whom information was obtained relevant to the investigation, the findings, and the basis for the findings, and it shall include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct, as well as a description of any sanctions taken by the institution. The report shall be submitted to any federal agency as required by law. (42 CFR 50.104(a)(4))
If it is determined that a formal investigation can not be completed in one hundred and twenty (120) days and the formal investigation pertains to research conducted under federal sponsorship, the University shall comply with pertinent regulations in submitting a request for an extension of time to complete the investigation. (42 CFR 50.104(a)(5))
The University shall cooperate with any funding agency when an allegation pertains to misconduct which occurred during the course of a project funded by the agency.
The formal investigation may result in a determination of guilt or innocence. If appropriate, the imposition of sanctions may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
1. Formal reprimand which is filed in the employee or faculty member's personnel file;
2. Mandated restitution of funds that were used to conduct the research in which the misconduct occurred;
3. Mandated actions to redress the consequences of misconduct;
4. Partial or total suspension from duties for a specified time with or without concomitant loss of pay;
5. Reassignment of academic duties;
6. Reduction in salary;
7. Non-reappointment at the end of a specified term of employment;
8. Removal from a special position of privilege or prestige (such as a titled professorship or an endowed chair);
9. Immediate severance of employment with the University;
10. Disbarment from future contractual relationship with the University for a specified or indefinite period.
In the case of students, permissible sanctions are set forth in the "Student Code of Conduct and Policies" but one or more of the sanctions set forth above as to faculty may also pertain to students.
Appeals of the decisions of the formal investigation committee may be made in writing to the Provost within five (5) days after the decision is made. Appeals of the decisions of the Provost may be made to the President within five (5) days after the decision is made. Sanctions will take effect when University level appeals are exhausted.
Should the accused be dissatisfied with the decision of the President, the accused may appeal to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia for a review of the decision. Such appeal must be submitted in writing within twenty (20) days following the decision of the President. The decision of the Board shall be final and binding for all purposes.
(Source: Vice President for Research, August 8, 1996)
312.02.07 - Animal Care and Use
A. Institutional Policy
Georgia State University strictly adheres to the Public Health Service policy on the care and use of animals in research. This policy applies to all procedures involving live animals, whether classroom, research laboratory, funded or unfunded and conducted at this institution, or at another institution as a consequence of subgranting or subcontracting arrangements. The university has established an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to oversee research involving animals.
B. Research Protocols
The Office of Sponsored Programs coordinates the review and approval of applications/protocols for research involving vertebrate animals. Requests for approval should be submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs at least two weeks in advance of the grant deadline and must include a copy of the complete scientific portion of the grant and a completed application for approval of research using animals. If the complete scientific portion of a protocol is not available at the time the request for approval is submitted to the IACUC, the investigator must submit sufficient information in a rough draft, including an abstract, so that the committee can knowledgeably review the protocol. When the grant application is complete, the investigator must send a copy of the final application to the IACUC via the Office of Sponsored Programs.
A full committee review will always be conducted. The investigator will be notified in writing of the review decision. If approval is withheld or contingent upon modifications, the reasons will be fully stated. The committee may approve the protocol as submitted, approve the protocol with modifications, or reject the protocol. A letter announcing the committee's decision will be sent to the investigator. If the protocol is approved with modifications, the investigator will be notified and must indicate in a letter to the Chairman of the committee that the modifications will be incorporated into the protocol. After the changes are reviewed, a letter will be sent to the investigator indicating that the protocol is approved as modified.
All protocols must be reviewed yearly and must be resubmitted to the IACUC every three years even if there are no changes. Requests to amend and/or continue research with approved protocols must be submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs for IACUC review. Amendments must be reviewed and approved by the committee before any changes are implemented. Changes might include, but are not limited to, changes in species, changes in the number of animals needed, changes in anesthetic, addition of a period of prolonged restraint, a new surgical procedure, or use of a different infectious agent, etc.
C. Instructional Protocols
All instructional activity using live vertebrate animals must be approved by the IACUC. An instructional protocol is one that is used in the laboratory component of a class offered at Georgia State University. Instruction/Training protocols must be submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs. Training includes students preparing an Honors thesis, undergraduate research, thesis research or dissertation research. If part of an ongoing research project, student training should be included under a faculty investigator's protocol. If this training is not part of an ongoing research project, the student must request approval. Proposed new courses using live vertebrate animals must be submitted to the IACUC for approval prior to their submission to the College Curriculum Committee. If a laboratory course carrying the same number is taught by more than one faculty member during the quarter or the year, only one protocol should be submitte, listing as principal investigators all faculty members involved in the course and designating a faculty member responsible for insuring that all guidelines are observed. All laboratory exercises and student training must be carried out under the direct supervision of a person experienced in the care and use of laboratory animals. A narrative description of the project must be submitted along with a completed application.
The IACUC will meet as necessary during the academic year to review protocols and changes in the operation of the animal facilities. IACUC members may not review or vote on applications in which they are personally involved, nor contribute to the constitution of a quorum. Consultants without voting privilege may be invited to assist in the review of complex issues.
Further information may be obtained from the Office of Sponsored Programs.
(Source: Vice President for Research, August 5, 1996)