Guidelines and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct

I. Introduction

A. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of these Guidelines and Procedures is to describe the procedures at the University of Nevada, Reno (the University) for responding to allegations of research misconduct, and to comply with federal requirements for responding to allegations of research misconduct.

These Guidelines and Procedures apply when responding to allegations of research misconduct against any person who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by or was affiliated by contract or agreement with the University. The University applies these Guidelines and Procedures to all research, regardless of funding.

Research misconduct allegations against a student for coursework will be managed by the University’s academic dishonesty policy and should be referred to the student’s department.

B. Relationship between NSHE Code, Title 2, Chapter 6 and Federal Regulations

Procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct shall be in accordance with the administrative requirements of NSHE Code, Title 2, Chapter 6. (NSHE Code, Chapter 6).

When allegations of research misconduct involve federally-supported research or research training programs, or applications or proposals for federally-supported research or training programs, the University will also comply with all applicable federal regulations, including timely notifications to the sponsor that it has initiated research misconduct proceedings.

These guidelines and procedures refer to, but do not incorporate all of the administrative procedures included in either NSHE Code, Chapter 6 or federal regulations. Persons responsible for research misconduct procedures must refer to and diligently apply all administrative requirements included in NSHE Code, Chapter 6, as well as all federal regulations, when applicable.

NSHE Code, Chapter 6 specifies that an investigation must be concluded within 60 days following the receipt of an allegation. Following the investigation, a hearing may be held, concluding with a recommendation to the president. Unless an extension is granted, the process of investigation, hearing, and recommendation should conclude no later than 180 days after receipt of an allegation. Federal regulations for responding to allegations of research misconduct allow up to 120 days to conclude an investigation, unless an extension is granted. Therefore, the person responsible for research misconduct proceedings should pay close attention to relevant timelines and consider requesting extensions when necessary.

II. Definitions

Definitions for the terms used in this document can be found in UAM 6,515: Policy for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct.

III. Roles and Responsibilities

Administrative Officer (AO): As defined in the NSHE Code, Chapter 6, means the institutional official responsible for receiving formal reports of research misconduct and for performing the duties established for the Administrative Officer in NSHE Code 6.7.1. The University President has appointed the vice president for research and administration to serve as the AO for responding to allegations of research misconduct.

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO): Per NSHE Code 6.4.2, the University President makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The RIO, as defined in 42 CFR Part 42 is the institutional official responsible for administering the University’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. The Administrative Officer or their designee serves as the University’s RIO.

Complainant: The person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Respondent: The person about whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Committee Members: Committee members are experts who may be appointed by the Administrative Officer to review allegations of research misconduct during inquiry and investigation stages. Committee members must act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties. Committee members will have relevant expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties.

Witnesses: Witnesses are people whom the Administrative Officer or their designee has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of an inquiry or investigation into allegations of research misconduct. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

IV. Guidelines

A. Confidentiality

Allegations of research misconduct and proceedings conducted under the University’s Research Misconduct Policy may be damaging to the professional reputations of persons involved. Accordingly, the maintenance of confidentiality is the guiding principle for this process, to protect both the complainant and the respondent. Persons subject to this policy who make, receive, or learn of an allegation of research misconduct shall protect, to the maximum extent possible, the confidentiality of information regarding the complainant, the respondent, and other affected individuals.

The Administrative Officer shall:

limit disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and
except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

The Administrative Officer may use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information.

B. Scope of Research Misconduct Proceedings

During any phase of a research misconduct proceeding, additional allegations may arise that are related to an ongoing Investigation and justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegation. If any new allegations arise, the AO will assess them according to the standard used during the assessment procedures below. If new allegations are deemed specific and credible, the AO will notify the Respondent in writing of the decision to review the allegations with a description of the allegations.

If the AO identifies additional Respondents during an inquiry or investigation, the University is not required to conduct a separate inquiry for each new Respondent. However, each new Respondent must be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The AO or their designee will notify the new Respondent in writing of the allegations and sequester additional research records if necessary.

C. Standard of Proof

The standard of proof in research misconduct proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred.

D. Multiple Institutions

When 42 CFR Part 93, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct is applicable to allegations involving multiple institutions, one institution must be designated as the lead institution if a joint research misconduct proceeding is conducted. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution should obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

E. Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying Sponsor of Special Circumstances

The University will comply with all interim administrative actions required by federal sponsors during the course of research misconduct proceedings.

F. Conflict of Interest or Bias

To ensure impartiality, all individuals involved in research misconduct proceedings, including members of inquiry and investigation committees, are expected to reveal any actual or potential conflicts of interest including, but not limited to: (1) previous personal knowledge of or involvement in the matter forming the basis of the research misconduct allegation; (2) close personal, professional or financial relationship with the Complainant, Respondent, or any other participant in the inquiry or investigation processes; or (3) any other situation that may raise the appearance of bias or conflict of interest.

Any individual with an actual conflict of interest or bias should withdraw from participation in the relevant processes. Any member may also withdraw or limit participation if he or she feels that participation may create the appearance of impropriety, even if there is no actual conflict of interest. The AO may also disqualify any individual involved in the research misconduct proceeding on the basis of an actual or perceived conflict of interest or bias. If an individual withdraws or is disqualified from particular proceedings, that individual shall take no part in those proceedings as a member of a committee or as a representative of the Complainant or Respondent, including attending meetings, asking questions, observing the proceedings, and discussing the allegations with other members. A disqualified individual may, however, be called as a witness during the inquiry or investigation processes.

V. Procedures

1. Allegation

All persons having knowledge of research misconduct or having a reason to believe that research misconduct may have occurred should submit an allegation of research misconduct to the AO. While allegations may initially be presented in writing or verbally, per NSHE Code 6.8.1, the AO may only act on an allegation that is made in writing and containing the elements of information required in NSHE Code 6.8.1. Therefore, the AO or their designee will work with the Complainant to formalize allegations in writing to be submitted to the AO.

Individuals who are uncertain about whether to file an allegation may consult with the AO prior to filing an allegation.

2. Assessment

Upon receipt of a written allegation of research misconduct, the AO or their designee will promptly assess the allegation to determine if it warrants an inquiry. The allegation is assessed to determine whether it (a) meets the definition of research misconduct, (b) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified, (c) is made against a person (or persons) to whom UAM 6,515 applies, and (d) the research misconduct occurred within the relevant timeframe limitations. The AO or their designee must also assess whether federal support or applications for funding are involved.

Per NSHE Code, Chapter 6, the AO must complete an investigation (i.e. Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation) within 60 days after the receipt of the allegation. Therefore, the assessment period should be as brief as possible.

In conducting the assessment, the AO or their designee need not interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently specific so that a potential instance of research misconduct may be identified.

If the AO determines that the allegation does not meet these criteria, the allegation should be dismissed without further action.

If the AO determines that the allegation meets the criteria listed above, an inquiry must be initiated.

For research proceedings submit to federal regulations, the AO or their designee should document the steps taken to assess the allegation and a list of the evidence reviewed (if any). The “Allegation of Research Misconduct Assessment Results Template” should be used to document the assessment procedures and outcome. The documentation should be sufficiently detailed to permit a later review by the sponsor as to why the University did or did not proceed to an inquiry. This is especially important if the proceeding closes at the assessment stage when the reviewer makes a determination of honest error. The assessment documentation should be securely retained in compliance with applicable record retention policies.

For research proceedings not subject to federal regulations, they AO or their designee may, but are not required to, document the procedures and outcome of the assessment.

If the allegation appears to raise issues other than research misconduct, the AO or designee should refer the Complainant to the appropriate University official.

3. Inquiry

An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. It is a fact-finding, non-adversarial proceeding. Findings of research misconduct cannot be made at the inquiry stage.

3.a. Notice of Inquiry to Respondent

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, or if research records or other evidence will be sequestered during the inquiry process, at the time of or before the beginning of an inquiry, the AO or designee will make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent that an allegation of research misconduct has been raised against them and the University’s decision to conduct an inquiry. The notification must be in writing using the “Notification of Inquiry” template and describe the specific allegations, the rights and responsibilities of the Respondent, and the inquiry process. The notification should also include any applicable federal regulations. The Respondent’s dean and department chair (or equivalent positions) will receive a copy of the notice of inquiry.

If the allegation of research misconduct does not involve federally funded research and the AO does not intend to sequester research records or other evidence during the inquiry process, the AO is not required to give notice to the Respondent that the University is conducting an inquiry.

3.b. Sequestration and Custody of the Research Record

Because of the limited nature of the inquiry, the AO is not required to gather and review additional evidence related to the allegation, but may choose to do so. If research records or other evidence will be sequestered during the inquiry, either before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the inquiry, the AO or their designee will take all reasonable and practical steps to:

Obtain custody of all records and evidence necessary to conduct the inquiry. When original records cannot be obtained, copies of records that are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value are acceptable.
Create an inventory of the sequestered research records and other evidence using the “Sequestration Inventory Record” template.
Confer with the Respondent to identify the records and evidence needed for the inquiry and the best means of persevering and maintaining the integrity of the records and evidence.
Store the sequestered research records and other evidence in a secure manner for the duration of the research misconduct proceedings and in accordance with applicable record retention policies. For example, 42 CFR Part 93 requires the institution to maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects, in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding.
Transfers of sequestered research records and other evidence from one location to another will be documented on a Chain of Custody form.
If the records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments. The AO or designee may consult with the NIH/PHS or other similar parties for advice in this regards.
When appropriate and necessary, the University will give the Respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials so that the Respondent may continue their scholarship or research.
The University may sequester additional research records and other evidence whenever additional items become known or relevant to the research misconduct proceeding.

The Respondent must cooperate with the AO or their designee in the efforts to obtain and preserve the research records and other evidence. If the Respondent is unwilling or unable to cooperate, the AO or their designee will preserve the evidence without the Respondent’s assistance. Simple failure to maintain adequate records is not sufficient to provide evidence of research misconduct. In order for a lack of research records to be evidence of research misconduct, the Respondent had to have destroyed them or refused to provide them. The Respondent’s unwillingness or inability to cooperate will be recorded, as will any other impediments to constructing the record of the research misconduct proceeding.

3.c. Inquiry Process

The inquiry process begins with a review of the allegations of research misconduct and the supporting materials, if any, to determine whether to gather additional evidence. The AO may convene an inquiry committee to conduct reviews of the allegation and evidence. If an inquiry committee is convened, the AO or designee will review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting an inquiry. The AO or designee will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed. Alternatively, the inquiry may be conducted by the AO, the RIO, or another designated institutional official in lieu of a committee, with the caveat that if needed, these individuals will utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.

As noted above, because of the limited nature of the inquiry, the AO is not required to gather and review additional evidence related to the allegation, but may choose to do so. The inquiry may also involve interviews with the Complainant or witnesses who could provide additional relevant information, as well as examining the relevant research records and materials.

Although not obligated to do so, the committee or individuals conducting the inquiry may invite the Respondent to meet and discuss the details of the alleged misconduct. The interview should be fact-finding rather than adversarial. If the Respondent declines to meet with the committee, or in addition to such a meeting, the committee may also solicit responses to written questions.

In all interviews, care must be taken to protect the identities of the Complainant, other witnesses, and to the extent possible, the Respondent.

If interviews are conducted, they may be in person or virtual. There is no requirement to record interviews during the inquiry stage, but transcripts or notes from interviews should be shared with interviewees and they should have an opportunity to correct the record, if necessary.

If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, the AO or their designee must notify them. Only allegations specific to a particular Respondent are to be included in the notification to that Respondent. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

3.d. Inquiry Report

For research proceedings subject to federal regulations, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry committee or person(s) conducting the inquiry must prepare a written report of the inquiry using the “Inquiry Report” template. The report should include a summary of the evidence it reviewed, if any. A finding of cannot made at the inquiry stage. Rather, the inquiry report is intended to be an objective summary of the relevant information obtained to date and an assessment of whether the allegation may have sufficient substance to warrant an investigation. Federal regulations include detailed requirements for the process and composition of inquiry reports, including the requirement for the institution to provide the Respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report and attach any comments received to the report.

When responding to allegations of research misconduct to which federal regulations do not apply, the AO is not required to complete a formal inquiry report, but may elect to do so.

3.e. AO Review of Inquiry and Determination

Upon completion of the inquiry, the AO may:

determine that the some or all of the allegations do not have sufficient substance to warrant an investigation and dismiss the allegation(s) without further action. The inquiry shall be deemed concluded as to any dismissed allegation. If the Respondent was notified about the inquiry, the AO or their designee shall inform the Respondent of the AO’s determination and the basis for its determination.
initiate an investigation of allegations of research misconduct that were not dismissed, accordance with these Guidelines and Procedures, NSHE Code, Chapter 6, and federal regulations, when applicable.

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, the institution must notify the Respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If notice of inquiry was shared with other institutional officials, the outcome should be shared with them. It is not a requirement to notify the Complainant of the outcome of the inquiry.

3.f. Notification to PHS/ORI, NSF, or Other Sponsor

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, the University must share the Inquiry Report with sponsoring agencies within regulated timelines.

3.g. Inquiry Timeline

Although federal regulations generally permit 90 days for the completion of an inquiry, NSHE Code, Chapter 6, allows for only 60 calendar days from the receipt of an allegation till completion of an investigation, including the assessment and inquiry phases.

3.h. Inquiry Record Retention

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, If the AO decides that an investigation is not warranted, records related to the inquiry must be secured and maintained per relevant record retention policies, sufficiently detailed to permit a later assessment by federal funding agencies of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted.

4. Investigation

4.a. Investigation Overview

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the Institutional Deciding Official, who will make the final decision based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions.

If on the basis of the inquiry, the determination is that an investigation is warranted, the Administrative Officer must initiate an investigation of the allegation of research misconduct pursuant to the provisions in NSHE Code, Chapter 6, and, when relevant, applicable federal regulations, with the purpose of developing a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth. When the allegation of research misconduct involves federally sponsored research, the University will notify the sponsor of the decision to begin an investigation, per the sponsor’s regulations. It is crucial that the person responsible for conducting the research misconduct investigation thoroughly review and comply with all applicable federal regulations.

Per NSHE Code, Chapter 6, at the conclusion of the investigation, the AO must issue a charging letter to the Respondent. See NSHE Code, 6.8.2 for details. Following issuance of the charging letter, the AO makes a recommendation to the president as to whether the allegation of research misconduct should proceed to a hearing and, if a hearing is recommended, the AO recommends the type of hearing.

If the president accepts the recommendation of the AO, a hearing will be held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the president receives a recommendation from the AO regarding whether the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conclusion that research misconduct did occur, and if so, the recommended institutional sanctions.

Note that a hearing is not included in federal regulations. For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, the hearing will be considered to be part of the investigation and will be included in the investigation timeline.

Upon review the findings of fact and recommendations from the hearing, the president may:

Dismiss the charge;
Affirm the recommended sanction;
Impose a lesser sanction than recommended;
Impose a greater sanction than recommended; or
Order a new hearing.

The president will reach a written decision within a reasonable time after receipt of findings of fact and recommendations. The president will notify the Respondent and the AO of the decision in writing.

Per NSHE Code, Chapter 6, Section 6.13, the Respondent may appeal the president’s decision.

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, the AO or designee will report the outcome of the hearing in the form of an Investigation Report. See relevant federal regulations for the required process and elements of an investigation report.

4.b. Notice to Respondent(s)

The AO or designee must follow the requirements of both NSHE Code, Chapter 6 and, when applicable, federal regulations regarding notification to the Respondent that the University is initiating an investigation.

If additional Respondents are identified during the investigation, the University may but is not required to conduct a separate inquiry for each new Respondent. If any additional Respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the institution must notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond.

While an investigation into multiple respondents can convene with the same investigation committee members, separate investigation reports and research misconduct determinations are required for each respondent.

4.c. Informal Resolution

Per NSHE Code, 6.8.2.c., if deemed appropriate to do so, the AO, with the approval of the president, may informally resolve the allegation by conciliating with the parties, by permitting the Complainant to voluntarily drop the complaint, or by permitting the Respondent to voluntarily accept disciplinary sanctions.

4.d. Sequestration of Records

If during the investigation, additional research records or other evidence is needed, the records and evidence will be sequestered in accordance with 3.b. above.

4.e. Documentation

Diligent efforts must be made to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes an examination of all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s).

4.f. Ensuring a Fair Investigation

Whether the investigation is completed by a committee (per federal regulations) or by the AO or their designee(s), diligent efforts must be made to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including the participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the investigation. If a committee is conducting the investigation, it may use the same committee members from the inquiry.

The investigation must pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

4.g. Interviews

During the investigation, the University must interview each Respondent, Complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent.

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations:

Interviews during the investigation must be recorded and transcribed.
Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview.
The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction.
The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation.
The Respondent must not be present during the witnesses' interviews but must be provided a transcript of interviews.

While these are considered best practices for conducting interviews, the AO may elect not to follow them during investigations to which federal regulations do not apply.

4.h. Investigation Recommendation and Report

Per NSHE Code, Chapter 6, if an allegation of research misconduct cannot be informally resolved, the AO shall make a recommendation to the president as to whether or not the allegation should proceed to a hearing. For investigations to which federal regulations apply, if the investigation does not proceed to a hearing, an investigation report will be completed and submitted to the federal agency at this stage. If the investigation proceeds to a hearing, the AO or their designee should inform the federal agency but will not complete an investigation report until the conclusion of the hearing.

5. Hearing and Appeals

When the president accepts a recommendation to proceed to a hearing, the University will follow the provisions of NSHE Code, Section 6.9 through 6.13 to conduct the hearing.

6. Notification to Federal Agencies

For research misconduct proceedings subject to federal regulations, following an investigation and, when held, a hearing, the University will submit an Investigation Report that includes all required elements, per applicable federal regulations.

7. Additional Administrative Actions

If the president determines that research misconduct was substantiated by the findings of facts, the AO may decide that additional administrative actions should be taken. Administrative actions may include, but are not limited to:

Withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found.
Removal of the responsible person from the particular project.
Additional mandatory training in responsible conduct of research for the respondent and any individuals supervised by the respondent.
Special monitoring of future work.
Restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate.
Other action appropriate to the research misconduct.

8. Other Considerations

8.a. Termination or Resignation Prior to Completion of Inquiry or Investigation

The termination of the Respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported and investigated will not preclude or terminate the research misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of the institution's responsibilities under 42 CFR § 93.

8.b. Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation

Following a final finding of no research misconduct, including federal agency concurrence where required by 42 CFR § 93, the AO or their designee must, at the request of the Respondent, undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to restore the Respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the Respondent, the AO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, and expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the Respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the Respondent's reputation should first be approved by the president.

8.c. Protection of Claimant, Witnesses, and Committee Members

During the research misconduct proceeding and upon its completion, regardless of whether the institution or sponsor determines that research misconduct occurred, the AO or their designee must undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect the position, and reputation of, or to counter potential or actual retaliation against, any Complainant who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and of any witnesses and committee members who cooperate in good faith with the research misconduct proceeding. The AO will determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore their respective positions or reputations or to counter potential or actual retaliation against them.

8.d. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith

If the president determines there was an absence of good faith by the Complainant, witnesses, committee members, or others involved in research misconduct proceedings, the president will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the person who failed to act in good faith.

9. Records

9.a. Maintaining Records for Review by the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

For research misconduct proceedings subject to 42 CFR Title 42, Public health Servivce Policies on Research Misconduct, the University must maintain and provide to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) upon request "records of research misconduct proceedings" as that term is defined by 42 CFR § 93.317. Unless custody has been transferred to HHS or ORI has advised in writing that the records no longer need to be retained, records of research misconduct proceedings must be maintained in a secure manner for 7 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation. The University is also responsible for providing any information, documentation, research records, evidence or clarification requested by ORI to carry out its review of an allegation of research misconduct or of the institution's handling of such an allegation.

9.b. Public Records

All reports and decisions reached after hearings or appeals held under NSHE Code, Chapter 6 are declared to be public records subject to the provisions or exclusions of the public records laws of the Nevada Revised Statutes as they may be interpreted by the courts.

10. Contact Information

For questions about the information in this Guidance and Procedures document, please contact the Research Integrity & Security at ris@unr.edu.