/Users/Salih/Desktop/Ali/MTU/Logos/Kurumsal/MTU Heading.png MTU%20ve%20UCECL/Design2/MESARYA%20TECHNICAL%20UNIVERSITY/MESARYA%20TECHNICAL%20UNIVERSITY/MESARYA%20TECHNICAL%20UNIVERSITY.png

FACULTY HANDBOOK

 

Table of Contents

 

Section E: Research

 

…………………………………………………………………

 

Section E: Research

E10: Classified Research Policy

Policy

Approved by Rector on 01.10.2020

This document concerns the rights and obligations of faculty members and students insofar as they relate to research done on the MTU campus. Consideration of faculty members’ and students’ rights and obligations as consultants to off-campus agencies, individuals, or other parties is specifically excluded.

It is recognized that, in certain areas of research, the association of faculty members with off-campus facilities has provided access to expensive and sophisticated types of equipment not available at the University and has consequently contributed toward the training and development of students. However, in order to preserve as open a University society as possible, faculty members should attempt to obtain support for unclassified research.

  1. In preservation of academic freedom, the right of every faculty member to solicit, conduct or participate in privately and governmentally sponsored research of his/her choice is recognized, whether such research is classified or not, so long as it is within the limits of existing Mesarya Technical University (MTU) policies as detailed in the Faculty Handbook. Sponsored research at the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) is justified only when it contributes toward the professional development of the faculty and also provides opportunities for the development of students. Classified research is no exception to the validity of these two criteria. Consequently, when a research project is proposed, the University, on behalf of the proponents and/or principal investigators-to-be, will inform the potential sponsor of MTU’s policies relating to classified research. Simultaneously, the University will request from the potential sponsor unrestricted dissemination of the procedures and the results of the research. In the event of denial of such request by the potential sponsor, the proponents will still be free to proceed with the implementation of the contract, so long as it is not in violation of the following guidelines.

 

  1. Students may participate in research projects of their interest, whether classified or not, within the limits of MTU policies, but they may not use classified data for course credit, theses or dissertations. If a student intends to use material from a classified project for her/his thesis or dissertation, the supervising faculty member must advise her/him that he/she will not be permitted to use any data that would cause the thesis or dissertation to be restricted from dissemination. Dissemination is interpreted to mean “availability to anyone without restriction.”

 

  1. With the exception of the Campus Security Office, the existence on campus of areas restricted because of classified research is prohibited.

 

  1. In the event that a conflict arises concerning the interpretation of existing University policies and rules with respect to classified research, an appeal will be heard by the chairperson of the Research Policy Committee and the Vice Rector for Research. At their discretion, they may request the Research Policy Committee to appoint an ad hoc committee to further deal with the problem. If the conflict cannot be resolved, the route of further appeals would be the Rector and the Board of Trustees.

 

E20: Overseas Research: Guidelines

Policy

The following statement, formulated by Education and World Affairs, was adopted in its entirety by the Rector on December 01, 2019, as official policy in matters pertaining to the overseas research of the University and its faculty members. The topic sentences of the EWA Guidelines are reproduced below. The full statement is on file in the Office of the University Secretary.

  1. The universities must assume an active and effective role in providing safeguards and setting high standards for North Cyprus study and research undertakings overseas.

 

  1. The university must take the lead in insisting on the rule of candor and full disclosure in connection with all overseas research.

 

  1. The university should reject covert funding of overseas research and at the same time press for an enlargement in the grant-making capacity of those government agencies which are not part of the military and intelligence complexes. It should seek to assure that faculty members applying for funds are aware of the full range of possibilities, public and private.

 

  1. The university should use all available means to assure that suitable academic quality standards are met with respect to overseas research projects and the scholars who will carry them out.
  2. The university should seek to assure that the overseas research of its faculty members enhances the American academic presence abroad and projects the best qualities of our educational community. It can do so partly by encouraging its scholars who are going abroad to take active account of the other country’s developmental needs in education and research.

 

  1. The university should lend its support to the strengthening of our educational representation abroad as a basis for more effective cooperation with the academic communities of other countries.

 

  1. Through its graduate faculties and professional schools, the university should begin to build into the training of students an appreciation of the types of problems that are involved in overseas research.

 

E40: Research Misconduct

Approved by: Rector       Effective: 01.10.2019
Responsible FS Committee: Research Policy Committee
Office Responsible for Administration: Vice Rector for Research andHSC Vice Chancellor for Research

Revisions to the Policy Rationale, Policy Statement, and Applicability sections of this document must be approved by the full Faculty Senate.

Policy Rationale

 

Integrity, trust, and respect are important elements in an academic research environment. Investigators typically conduct research and explain findings and theories with painstaking diligence, precision, and responsibility. However, research misconduct threatens both to erode the public trust and to cast doubt on the credibility of all researchers. This policy and procedures regarding research misconduct are intended to protect the integrity of the Mesarya Technical University (MTU)’s (MTU) research enterprise and not hinder the search for truth or interfere with the expansion of knowledge.

 

Policy Statement

 

Because MTU as well as the general public and government are affected by research misconduct, MTUfaculty and administration have created a process to ensure the credibility and objectivity of research activities and deal with research misconduct if it arises.  In broad terms this process is designed to:

  • Ensure that ethical standards for research at MTU are clearly stated and applied.
  • Promptly inquire into allegations of misconduct and, where appropriate, initiate formal investigations and advise sponsors of action taken.
  • Ensure that each investigation is properly documented to support findings and carefully conducted to protect any person whose reputation may be placed at risk during the process.
  • Respect the principles of academic freedom.

 

The policy and procedures regarding research misconduct are intended to protect the integrity of MTU’s research enterprise and not hinder the search for truth or interfere with the expansion of knowledge.

This policy applies to all individuals who may be involved with a research project, including, but not limited to, faculty, graduate/undergraduate students, staff, employees, contractors, visiting scholars, and any other member of MTU’s academic community.

General Principles

 

  1. Research misconduct cannot be tolerated and will be firmly dealt with when found to exist.
  2. For purposes of resolving allegations of research misconduct, the process established by this Policy shall apply to allegations of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. All other allegations of research misconduct shall be resolved utilizing other applicable MTU policies and procedures.
  3. Every effort shall be made to protect the rights and the reputations of everyone involved, including the individual who in good faith alleges perceived misconduct as well as the alleged violator(s). A good faith allegation is made with the honest belief that research misconduct may have occurred. Persons making a good faith allegation shall be protected against retaliation. However, persons making allegations in bad faith will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination or expulsion. An allegation is made in bad faith if the complainant knows that it is false or makes the allegation with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove it.
  4. All members of the MTU community are expected to cooperate with committees conducting inquiries or investigations.
  5. Care will be exercised at all times to ensure confidentiality to the maximum extent possible and to protect the privacy of persons involved in the research under inquiry or investigation. The privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith will also be protected to the maximum extent possible. Files involved in an inquiry or investigation shall be kept secure and applicable state and federal law shall be followed regarding confidentiality of personnel records.
  6. Conflict of Interest.  If the Provost, the Chancellor, Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, has any actual or potential conflict of interest, the persons shall recuse themselves from the case. The Rector of MTU shall appoint designates to act instead.

 

When a case continues to the Inquiry and Investigation stages (Sections 2. and 3.), if the President of the Faculty Senate has any actual or potential conflict of interest, the person shall recuse him/herself from the case and the Senate Rector-Elect shall appoint a designate to act instead.

If any member of the Faculty Senate Operations Committee or the Chair of the Research Policy Committee has any actual or potential conflict of interest, the persons shall recuse themselves from the case. The Faculty Senate President, or designate as appropriate, shall appoint faculty members to act instead.

  1. MTU will respond to each research misconduct allegation in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.
  2. MTU will ensure its deans, directors, chairs, and graduate advisors are reminded annually of the MTU’s policies and procedures on Research Misconduct, including this Policy. MTU will also inform all faculty, students, and staff of:

(1) the need and importance of research integrity; and

(2) the importance of compliance with applicable policies and procedures.

Applicability

 

All academic and research MTU units, including the Health Sciences Center and Branch Campuses.

Revisions to the remaining sections of this document may be amended with the approval of the Faculty Senate Research Policy Committee, Policy Committee, and Operations Committee and in accordance with applicable federal guidelines listed in Section 5.7 herein.

Revisions to the remaining sections of this document may be amended with the approval of the Faculty Senate Research Policy Committee, Policy Committee, and Operations Committee.

Definitions

 

Complainantmeans a person who makes an allegation of research misconduct. There can be more than one complainant in any inquiry or investigation.

 

Deciding Official will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions.  The Provost is the deciding official for cases where the respondent is not a HSC employee.  The Chancellor for Health Sciences is the deciding official for cases where the respondent is a HSC employee.

 

Conflict of Interest.  All officials or officially appointed participants in an investigation, appeal, or decision must be able to participate in a completely disinterested frame of mind. A conflict of interest exists if an individual who would participate as an institutional representative or appointee in an investigatory process, an appellate process, or a decision-making process also has a relationship with a complainant or respondent that could be seen as a source of bias.  Potential relationships and/or circumstances that could create a conflict of interest include:

  • Being or having been in a teacher-learner, mentor-mentee, or similar relationship with either complainant or respondent;
  • Working or having worked in the research labs of either the complainant or the respondent;
  • Being a current co-investigator with either the complainant or the respondent on any research project or grant;
  • Being a current co-author with either the complainant or the respondent on any publication or on any manuscripts that may be awaiting publication;
  • Being involved in any unrelated E40 Research Misconduct process or investigation;
  • Having any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts with either the complainant or the respondent;
  • Any other circumstance that could interfere with an individual’s ability to participate with objectivity and without bias.

 

Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

 

Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

NSF means the National Science Foundation. The NSF has adopted rules establishing standards for institutional responses to allegations of research misconduct.

 

OIG means the Office of the Inspector General, an office within a Northern Cyprus(TRNC) agency that is charged with oversight and implementation of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) government agency’s policies and procedure on research misconduct.

 

ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, an office within the Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for overseeing the implementation of PHS policies and procedures on research misconduct.

 

PHS means the Public Health Service, a component of the Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Department of Health and Human Services. The PHS has adopted rules establishing standards for institutional responses to allegations of research misconduct.

 

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

 

Recklessly means that a person acts in such a manner that the individual consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk or grossly deviates from the standard of conduct that a reasonable individual would observe.

 

Research Integrity Applicability.  This policy is intended to carry out MTU’s responsibilities under the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93, and other applicable regulations governing research misconduct. It applies to allegations of research misconduct (as defined below), or in the reporting of research results involving:

  • any individual who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with MTU; including, but not limited to, faculty, graduate/undergraduate students, staff, employees, contractors, visiting scholars, and any other member of MTU’s academic community;  and
  • in case of research subject to PHS regulations and policies,  one or more of the following also applies:

(1) PHS supported or non-PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, or research training or activities related to that research or research training, such as the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of research information;

(2) applications or proposals for PHS-supported or non-PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research; or research training or activities related to that research or research training; or

(3) plagiarism or research records produced in the course of research, research training or activities related to that research or research training.

This includes any research proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, or any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal resulted in a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or any other form of support.

These policies and procedures do not apply to authorship or collaboration disputes and apply only to allegations of research misconduct that occurred within six years of the date on which MTU or HHS received the allegation, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and grandfather exceptions in 42 CFR93.105(b) and other applicable regulations governing research misconduct.

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reporting, or reviewing sponsored or unsponsored research. The misconduct must have been committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Research misconduct is further defined to include gross carelessness in conducting research amounting to wanton disregard of truth or objectivity, or failure to comply or at least attempt to comply with material and relevant aspects of valid statutory or regulatory requirements governing the research in question. Research misconduct is more than a simple instance of an error in judgment, a misinterpretation of experimental results, an oversight in attribution, a disagreement with recognized authorities, a failure in either inductive or deductive reasoning, an error in planning or carrying out experiments, or a calculation mistake.

 

Research records are defined as research data, research notebooks, and information needed to interpret such data.  It does not include general email or correspondence or other non-research related data or documents.

 

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person who is the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

 

Who should read this policy

  • Faculty, staff, students, contractors, visiting scholars, and any other member of MTU’s academic community involved in the conduct or research or the reporting of research results.
  • Members of the Faculty Senate and the Research Policy Committee
  • Academic deans or other executives, department chairs, directors, and managers
  • Administrative staff responsible for sponsored research management.
  • Any person who brings forth any allegation of research misconduct.
  • Any person against whom an allegation of research misconduct tis directed or the person who is the subject of a research misconduct inquiry or investigation.

 

Related Documents

 

MTU Board of Trustees’ Policy Manual

Policy 5.10 “Conflicts of Interest in Research”
Policy 5.13 “Research Fraud”
Policy 5.14 “Human Beings as Subjects in Research”
Policy 5.15 “Use of Animals in Education and Research”

 

Faculty Handbook

E90 “Human Beings as Subjects in Research”
E100 “Policy Concerning Use of Animals”
E110 “Conflicts of Interest in Research”

 

Contacts

Direct any questions about this policy to Office of the Vice Rector for Research or the HSC Office of Research.

Procedures

 

All applicable persons will report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct in accordance with this Policy.  Allegations may be made in writing or orally, and in either case may be anonymous, and in all cases; must be sufficiently credible and specific.  If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the Vice Rector for Research, Vice Chancellor for Research, or the appropriate HSC Research Integrity Office (RIO) to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically.  A copy of this policy shall be made available to the complainant.

 

  1. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations

 

1.1.  An initial report of alleged research misconduct shall be treated in a confidential manner and brought to the attention of the faculty member or other person (e.g., chairperson, supervisor, director, principal investigator) responsible for the researcher(s) whose actions are in question, or to the dean of the researcher’s faculty, or to the Vice Rector for Research (for allegations concerning a main campus researcher) or Vice Chancellor for Research (for allegations concerning a HSC researcher). The person receiving the initial allegation shall, in turn, make an immediate confidential report of the allegations to the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate.

 

1.2.  An initial reportof alleged research misconduct might arise as part of an administrative review. Such an allegationwill be acted upon in accordance with this Policy. The allegation should be brought confidentially to the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate.

1.3  Upon  receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Vice Rector for Research or the ViceChancellor for Research,or designee, shall conduct a preliminary assessment within seven (7) working days.  The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to determine whether the allegation:

(1) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified,

(2) falls within the definition of research misconduct and

(3) is within the jurisdictional criteria of this Policy.  An inquiry must be conducted if these criteria are met.

In conducting the preliminary assessment, the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses need not be interviewed and data need not be gathered beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

  1. Inquiry

 

2.1  Purpose and Initiation

If the preliminary assessment reveals that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and there is sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, the inquiry process shall be initiated by the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate. The initiating official will clearly identify the original allegation and any related issues that should be evaluated in the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct occurred. The findings of the inquiry shall be set forth in an inquiry report.

2.2  Securing Research Records

 

Prompt securing of the research records is in the best interest of both the respondent and MTU.  Either before or when the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation, inquiry, or investigation,the Vice Rector for Research or the Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research 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, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.  Upon ensuring that the research records are secure, the respondent shall be notified that an inquiry is being initiated and the charges and the procedures to be followed.  An inventory of the secured records shall be provided him/her as soon as reasonable and practicable.  The respondent will be provided with copies of, or supervised access to, the research records, if requested.  The steps required to obtain custody, inventory, and sequester any additional research records and evidence will be followed throughout the inquiry process in the course of securing records.  MTU will take reasonable measures to minimize the impact of record collection on the ongoing research, so long as such measures do not conflict with MTU’s obligations to sequester.  In addition, if research records are located in laboratories or other facilities where chemical, biological, and hazards exist, MTU will take steps to ensure that the collection of such records does not jeopardize the health and safety of any individuals.

 

2.3  Inquiry Committee

 

The inquiry shall be carried out by a committee of three persons appointed by the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, in consultation with the Rector of the Faculty Senate, or his/her designate. At least two Inquiry Committee members shall be tenured faculty. One of the tenured faculty members shall chair the Committee. Committee members should be selected on the basis of relevant research background and experience. Faculty members from other universities may be named to the Inquiry Committee if a sufficient number of qualified MTU faculty members are not available. Members of the Committee shall have no actual or potential conflicts of interest in the case, shall be unbiased, and shall, together, possess sufficient expertise to enable the committee to conduct the inquiry.

The respondent and the complainant shall be notified of the proposed Committee membership and may object in writing to any of the proposed appointees on the grounds that the person, or the Committee as a whole, does not meet the criteria stated above. The Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, in consultation with the Rector of the Faculty Senate, or his/her designate, will consider the objection and if it has merit, shall make appropriate substitution(s). In the case of disagreement regarding appointments, the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, shall decide the challenge. That decision shall be final.

If the Committee so requests, the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, shall designate an official to assist the Committee in conducting the inquiry. The Committee shall receive a written charge from the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, defining the subject matter of its inquiry prior to beginning its work.

2.4 Inquiry Process

 

The respondent and complainant shall be given an opportunity to interview with the Inquiry Committee. The committee may interview others and examine relevant research records, as necessary, to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation. University legal counsel shall be available to the committee for consultation.

The length of the inquiry shall not exceed sixty (60) calendar days unless prior written approval for a longer period is obtained from the Vice Rectorfor Research or Vice Chancellor for Researchas appropriate. If the period is extended, the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty-day period.

2.5  Inquiry Report

 

The Inquiry Committee shall prepare a report that includes:

 

(1) the names and titles of the committee members, and experts consulted, if any;
(2) the allegations;
(3) the PHS support, if any;
(4) a summary of the inquiry process;
(5) a summary of the evidence reviewed;
(6) a summary of any interviews;
(7) the conclusions of the inquiry as to whether an investigation is recommended; and
(8) whether any other action should be taken if an investigation is not recommended.

 

The respondent shall be given fourteen (14) calendar days to review the report and to add his or her comments, which will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based upon the respondent’s comments, the Inquiry Committee may revise its report.

2.6  Inquiry Determination

 

The Inquiry Committee final report will be sent to the Vice Rectorfor Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, who will determine whether the results of the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation or whether the matter will not be pursued further. The respondent and complainant shall be notified in writing of the decision.

 

  1. Investigation

 

3.1  Purpose and Initiation

The purpose of the investigation is to explore the allegations in detail, examine the evidence in depth, and determine specifically whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. If instances of possible misconduct involving a different respondent are uncovered, the matter should be sent to the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, to initiate a preliminary assessment.

The Investigation Committee will be appointed and the process initiated within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the inquiry. If required by sponsoring agency regulations, the office of the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, shall notify the agency of its decision to commence an investigation on or before the date the investigation begins.

3.2  Securing Research Records

 

Any additional pertinent research records that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry will be immediately sequestered when the decision is made to conduct an investigation. The Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, will direct this process. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investigation will begin. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including a decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. As soon as practicable, a copy of each sequestered record will be provided to the respondent, or to the individual from whom the record is taken if not the respondent, if requested.

 

3.3  Investigation Committee

 

The investigation shall be conducted by a committee of five persons appointed by the Faculty Senate Operations Committee, in consultation with the Chair of the Research Policy Committee or his/her designate. Committee members should be selected on the basis of relevant research background and experience. All persons appointed from MTU shall be tenured faculty. Tenured faculty members from other universities or senior researchers from research institutions may be named to the Investigation Committee if a sufficient number of qualified MTU faculty members are not available. Members of the committee shall have no actual or potential conflicts of interest in the case, shall be unbiased, and shall, together, possess sufficient expertise to enable the committee to conduct the investigation. No more than two members of the Inquiry Committee may be appointed to serve on the Investigation Committee.

The respondent and the complainant shall be notified of the proposed committee membership and may object in writing to any of the proposed appointees on the grounds that the person, or the committee as a whole, does not meet the criteria stated above. The Faculty Senate Operations Committee will consider the objection and if it has merit, shall make appropriate substitution(s), in consultation with the Chair of the Research Policy Committee or his/her designate. In the case of disagreement regarding appointments made by the Faculty Senate Operations Committee, the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, shall decide the challenge. That decision shall be final.

If the committee so requests, the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Researchshall designate an official to assist the committee in conducting the investigation. The committee shall receive a written charge from the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, defining the subject matter of its investigation prior to beginning its work.

3.4  Investigation Process

 

The InvestigationCommittee shall make diligent efforts to interview the complainant, the respondent, and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations. The interviews will be recorded on a recording device provided by the office of the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research as appropriate. A verbatim written record shall be made of all interviews.  A transcript of his/her interview shall be provided to each witness for review and correction of errors, which shall be returned and become part of the investigatory file. University legal counsel shall be available to the committee for consultation.

 

3.5  Investigation Report

 

The Investigation Committee shall prepare a draft of the final report that includes:

 

(1) the names and titles of the committee members, and experts consulted, if any;
(2) the allegations;
(3) the PHS support, if any;
(4) a summary of the inquiry process;
(5) a summary of the evidence reviewed;
(6) a summary of any interviews;
(7) findings and basis for each finding;
(8) conclusion(s) as to whether research misconduct occurred; and
(9) recommendations for institutional action.

 

Copies of all significant documentary evidence that is referenced in the report should be appended to the report.

A finding of research misconduct requires that four conditions be met:

(1) the conduct at issue falls within this policy’s definition of research misconduct;
(2) the misconduct was committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly;
(3) there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
(4) the allegation has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the respondent committed research misconduct.

 

The respondent shall be given a copy of the draft investigation report for comment, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the significant documentary evidence on which the report is based.  The respondent will be allowedthirty (30) calendar days from the date he/she received the draft report to submit comments.  The respondent’s comments must be included and considered in the final report.  The complainant may be provided with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation, and the complainant will have thirty (30) calendar days to submit any comments to the investigation Committee.  The report may be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainant’s comments.

If the Investigation Committee puts forward a final report with a finding of research misconduct, the respondent has fourteen (14)calendar days to requesta hearing before the Provost or Chancellor, as appropriate. The hearing will allow for argument, rebuttal, cross-examinations and a written record of the proceedings.

3.6  Institutional Review and Determination

 

The Investigation Committee final report will be forwarded to the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate. The Vice Rector for Research will transmit the report to the Provost who is the MTU deciding official for cases where the respondent is not a Health Sciences Center employee. The Chancelloris the deciding official for cases where the respondent is a Health Sciences Center employee. The deciding official will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions.

If the respondent has requested a hearing, the deciding official will conduct the hearing following the MTU model hearing procedure, available from the University Counsel’s office. The Investigation Committee presents the case consistent with its report. The respondent presents the rebuttal. The respondent may have an advisor present.

The deciding official’s decision should be consistent with the definition of research misconduct, MTU’s policies, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Investigation Committee. The deciding official may also return the report to the Investigation Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The deciding official’s final determination will be sent to the respondent and complainant. If the deciding official’s decision varies from that of the Investigation Committee, the basis for rendering a different decision will be explained in the report to ORI and other agencies as appropriate.

Respondents may appeal the final determination to the MTU Rector. An appeal is limited to:

(1) a claim of procedural error; and/or

(2) a claim that the sanction imposed as a result of a finding of research misconduct is inappropriate.

Except as to PHS and Department of Energy (DOE) funded research, the investigation shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180)calendar days of the first meeting of the Investigation Committee. However, for PHS or DOE sponsored the research, unless an extensionhas been granted,MTU must submit the following to ORI or DOE OIG, MTU must submit the required documentation to ORI or DOE OIG within one hundred twenty (120)calendardays of the first meeting of the Investigation Committee.

 

The following document are required by PHS:

(1) a copy of the final investigation report with all attachments;

(2) a statement of whether MTU accepts the findings of the investigation report;

(3) a statement of whether MTU found misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and

(4) a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.

Documentation requirements, adjudication timelines, and the associated mandates are sponsor-specific and must be deciphered for each sponsor involved in the research at issue.

  1. Actions Following Investigation

 

4.1  Finding of Research Misconduct

 

If the final determination is that research misconduct occurred, MTU shall take appropriate action, which may include but is not limited to:

(1) notification ofthe sponsoring agency;
(2) withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research;
(3) removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, rank reduction or termination of employment in accordance with MTU policies and procedures. In cases involving faculty, implementation must be consistent with the Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure;
(4) determination ofwhether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, collaborators of the respondent, or other relevant parties should be notified; and
(5) any other steps deemed appropriate to accomplish justice and preserve the integrity of MTU and the credibility of the sponsor’s program.

 

4.2  Restoration of Respondent’s Reputation

 

If the final determination is that no research misconduct occurred, efforts shall be undertaken to the extent possible and appropriate to fully protect, restore, or maintain the credibility of the research project, research results, and the reputation of the respondent, the sponsor and others who were involved in the investigation or deleteriously affected thereby. Depending on the circumstances, consideration should be given to notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent’s personnel files, or reviewing negative decisions related to tenure or advancement to candidacy that occurred during the investigation. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent’s reputation must first be approved by the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate.

4.3  Protection of the Complainant and Others

 

Regardless of whether MTU determines that research misconduct occurred, reasonable efforts will be undertaken to protect complainants who made allegations of scientific misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. The Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Research, or designee, will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent retaliation against the complainant. If a complainant believes that retaliation was threatened, attempted or occurred, he or she may file a complaint with the MTU InternalAudit Department.

4.4  Allegations Made in Bad Faith

 

If relevant, the Vice Rector for Research or Vice Chancellor for Researchwill determine whether the complainant’s allegation of research misconduct was made in good faith. If an allegation was made in bad faith, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken in accordance with MTU policies and procedures. If the complainant is not associated with MTU, appropriate organizations or authorities may be notified and administrative or legal action considered.

 

  1. Other Considerations

 

5.1  Requirements for Reporting to ORI When Funding from PHS Is Involved

 

5.1.1  The decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the Director of theORI, on or before the date the investigation begins. The notification must include at a minimum the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation, and the PHS application or grant number(s) involved.

 

5.1.2  If MTU plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, a report of such planned termination shall be made to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.

 

5.1.3  If MTU determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation within one hundred twenty(120)calendar days, a written request for an extension shall be submitted to ORI that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, MTU must file periodic progress reports as requested by ORI.

 

5.1.4  MTU will keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of an investigation that may affect current or potential Department of Health and Human Services 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.

 

5.1.5  ORI shall be notifiedimmediately, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, if there is any reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

(1) Health or safety of the public is a risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;

(2) HHS resources or interests are threatened

(3) Research activities should be suspended;

(4) There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;

(5) Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Governmental action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;

(6) The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or

(7) The research community or public should be informed.

5.2.  Funding AgencyRequirements for Reporting

When support from other funding agencies is implicated in research subject to the allegation of potential misconduct, the funding agency policies must be researched and followed.

5.3  Administrative Action

MTU officials will take administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and ensurethat the purposes of the federal financial assistance are carried out.  MTU officials shall ensure that administrative actions taken by the institution and ORI are enforced and shall take appropriate action to notify other involved parties such as sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, and licensing boards, of those actions.

5.4  Termination of MTU Employment

The termination of the respondent’s MTU employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after termination of employment, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of all the evidence.

5.5  Record Retention

Records of the research misconduct proceeding will be maintained in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of any proceeding by MTU involving research misconduct allegation, or the completion of any ORI proceeding involving the allegation of research misconduct, whichever is later, unless custody of the records has been transferred to ORI or ORI has advised that the records no longer need to be retained.  When it is determined that an investigation is not warranted, detailed documentation of the inquiry must be retained for at least seven (7) years after termination of the inquiry, so that ORI may assess the reasons why MTU decided not to conduct an investigation.

5.6  Reimbursement

If requested, the MTU Board of Board of Trustees in the pursuit of justice and fairness may, in its sole discretion, fully or partially reimburse the respondent and/or the complainant for legal fees in cases of unusual hardship.

5.7  Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Regulatory Changes

If PHS, ORI, NSF or any other federal agency amends its requirements on research misconduct, those amendments shall govern where applicable and shall be incorporated into this policy by reference herein. Such changes in Northern Cyprus (TRNC) states requirements shall supersede all relevant portions of this Policy.

 

 

E60: Sponsored Research

Approved by Rector, 01.10.2019

Revisions to the Policy Rationale, Policy Statement, and Applicability sections of this document must be approved by the full Faculty Senate.

Policy Rationale

 

It is the policy of the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) (MTU) to encourage faculty members to participate in research sponsored by outside agencies when such research is consistent with the basic aims of MTU in regard to the education of students, the extension of knowledge, and the broadening of man’s horizon in the sciences, engineering, arts, and humanities. To ensure the most effective administration of MTU’s sponsored research, this policy document provides policies and procedures for the submission of proposals, approval of research contracts and grants, budgeting of facilities and administrative (F&A) expenditures, and reporting of actual F&A expenditures.

 

Policy Statement

 

  1. The Vice Rector for Research (VPR) has been designated by the Rector as MTU’s reviewing, certifying, and negotiation coordinating officer for all main-campus and branch-campus research proposals submitted to outside agencies. The Senior Executive Officer for Finance & Administration (SEOFA), Health Sciences Center (HSC), has been designated by the Rector as MTU’s reviewing, certifying, and negotiation coordinating officer for all HSC research proposals submitted to outside agencies. The VPR and SEOFA HSC have also been designated the approval authority for any modifications to awards, in response to research proposals.

Final authority for accepting and signing research contracts and grants is vested in the Rector of MTU, and has been delegated as indicated in UAP Policy 2010, “Contracts Signature Authority and Review,” University Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.

  1. On an annual basis the Vice Rector for Research shall consult with the Research Council of the MTU Faculty Senate to discuss research priorities of, and adjustments to, the F&A distribution algorithm for main-campus and branch-campus sponsored research. These discussions shall reflect input articulated to the Faculty Senate by its various committees and individual faculty members involved in sponsored research.

Similarly, on an annual basis, the Vice Chancellor for Research ( VCR) shall consult with the HSC Council of the Faculty Senate and other HSC research committees concerning research priorities of, and adjustments to, the F&A distribution for HSC-sponsored research.

Applicability

 

All academic and research MTU units, including the Health Sciences Center and Branch Campuses.

Revisions to the remaining sections of this document may be amended with the approval of the Faculty Senate Policy and Operations Committee in consultation with the responsible Faculty Senate Committee listed in Policy Heading.

 

Definitions

 

Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Expenditures. F&A expenditures reflect costs associated with providing and maintaining the infrastructure that supports the research enterprise (buildings and their maintenance, libraries, etc.) and which cannot easily be identified with a specific project. F&A expenditures are calculated using rates determined in conjunction with auditors from the applicable federal agency. The rate is calculated and charged as a percentage of modified total direct costs (MTDC).

 

Sponsored Research: Sponsored research shall be construed to include sponsored research, service, training projects, and other categories of awards for all except basic capital construction and maintenance projects.

 

Who should read this policy

  • Faculty and staff conducting sponsored research
  • Members of the Faculty Senate and the Research Policy Committee
  • Academic deans or other executives, department chairs, directors, and managers
  • Administrative staff responsible for sponsored research management.

 

Related Documents

MTU Board of Trustees’ Policy Manual, Policy 5.9 “Sponsored Research”
Faculty Handbook, Policy E70 “Intellectual Property”
University Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual
Policy 2010 “Contracts Signature Authority and Review,”
Policy 2425 “Recovery of Facilities and Administrative Costs”
Office of the Vice Rector for Research, “Proposal Development and Award Guide”

 

Contacts

Direct any questions about this policy to Office of the Vice Rector for Research or the HSC Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research.

Procedures

 

  1. Faculty shall follow procedures for proposal preparation and submission as outlined, from time to time, in the procedures promulgated by the Office of the VPR, for main-campus and branch-campus sponsored research, and the VCR-HSC for HSC sponsored research.

1a. Faculty Research Support Services (FRSS), under the direction of the VPR, provides assistance to non-HSC faculty and staff by:

  • Finding funding sources matching research interests and project development.
  • Developing and preparing proposals (including budget).
  • Navigating MTU’s proposal process.
  • Planning, coordinating, and supporting large and complex proposal efforts requiring numerous partnerships and multidisciplinary collaborations.

 

FRSS also acts as liaison between the sponsor agency and the faculty when requested to do so.

 

1b. The Office of the VCR- HSC provides services similar to those described in 1a above to HSC faculty and staff.

  1. The office of the VPR will coordinate closely with the main-campus and branch-campus principal investigators and appropriate members of the Contract and Grant Accounting Office to ensure that the prior approval function, of modifying grant and contract budgets in force, is in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring agencies or foundations. Similarly the office of the VCR-HSC will coordinate closely with the principal investigators and appropriate members of the HSC sponsored research management teams to ensure that the prior approval function, of modifying grant and contracts budgets in force, is in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring agencies or foundations.
  2. In consultation with the Provost, the OVPR, and the Faculty Senate Research Council, a formula (or algorithm) for the distribution of the main campus and branch campus F&A funds to units and centers, shall be developed by the OVPR and posted on the OVPR’s website on an annual basis for main-campus sponsored research. The annual budget shall also be posted on the OVPR’s website

Similarly, in consultation with the OVCR-HSC and the Faculty Senate HSC Council, a formula (or algorithm) for the distribution of the HSC F&A funds to units, centers, and institutes, shall be developed by the OVCR, approved by the Chancellor, and posted on the OVCR’s website on an annual basis for HSC sponsored research. The annual budget shall also be posted on the OVCR’s website.

  1. Actual F&A distributions for main campus sponsored research, for each fiscal year shall be documented and posted on OVPR’s website no later than three months after the end of the fiscal year. Similarly, actual F&A distributions shall be posted on the website no later than three months after the end of the fiscal year.
  2. During the regular academic year when the contract or grant calls for released time from regular MTU duties, the basic nine-month salary from the instructional budget will be reduced proportionally. The released time will be compensated from contract or grant funds at the basic salary rate.

E70: Intellectual Property Policy

Policy

Approved by Rector 01.10.2019

Approved by the Board of Board of Trustees 02.10.2019

 

Foreword

 

In the course of conducting their University-administered activities, the faculty, staff, and students often create intellectual property that may be protectable by patent, copyright, or other means. The University wants a policy that encourages the treatment of such property in ways beneficial to the creators of such works, as well as to the University and to the public. To these ends, the University and the creators should assist each other in identifying, evaluating, protecting, and exploiting such property. Such efforts will also help in recognizing the creation of intellectual property as a significant academic achievement.

Accordingly, this Policy seeks to recognize such achievements; to provide advice and assistance to faculty, staff, and students; to promote a clear understanding of legal relationships; and to realize and optimize the benefits of potentially valuable intellectual property to the creators as well as to the University. A feature of this Policy is to encourage creators to perform key roles in the utilization of intellectual property.

This Policy governs the ownership, protection, and transfer of Scholarly/Artistic Works (as defined in Section 2.2) and Technological Works (as defined in Section 2.3) created by University faculty, staff, and students. Inventors and authors are referred to in this Policy as creators. It is the purpose of this Policy to encourage, support, and reward scientific research and scholarship, and to recognize the rights and interests of creators, the University, and the public.

However, the University’s commitment to teaching and research is primary and this Policy does not diminish the right and obligation of faculty, staff, and students to disseminate research results for scholarly purposes. The latter is considered by the University to take precedence over the commercialization of Scholarly/Artistic and Technological Works.

Summary

 

This summary of the Intellectual Property Policy is intended only as an aid to reading the Policy. Wording in the summary should not be relied upon as a substitute for the Policy.

 

  1. The Policy applies to all University faculty, staff, and students, hereafter referred to as creators. (See Article 1.)

 

  1. The University’s commitment to teaching and research is primary, and the right and obligation of creators to disseminate research results for scholarly purposes takes precedence over the commercialization of Scholarly/Artistic and Technological Works.

 

  1. Faculty members working with students on research projects must inform students in advance of the terms of this Policy and of any obligations of nondisclosure or confidentiality.

 

  1. All inventions, tangible research results, and artistic and literary works are subject to this Policy and to TRNC laws and regulations governing intellectual property. (See Sections 2.2 and 2.3.)

 

  1. All Scholarly/Artistic Works are owned by creators unless they were created with substantial directed investment of University facilities or funds or capitalize on affiliation with the University. (See Section 2.2.)

 

  1. Technological Works (inventions and tangible research results) that are owned by the University under this Policy are:

* those created using University facilities or funds;

* and those created without University facilities or funds but within the scope of the creators’ employment (determined by the creators’ recent teaching, research, or other University activities).

Exception is made for inventions and tangible research results that were assigned by creators to an outside entity pursuant to a consulting agreement that is consistent with other University policies (including conflict of interest) and that has received prior approval by the creators’ department Chair and Dean or Unit Director. (See Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.)

  1. The Policy is administered by the Provost or the Executive ViceRector for Health Sciences for their, respective, reporting units. (See Article 3.)
  2. Royalties from commercialization by STC.MTU(Science & Technology Corporation) of inventions, tangible research results, and other types of intellectual property are allocated (see Section 2.6):

40% equally among the creators
40% to STC.MTU.
20% to the University.

 

  1. Standard procedures for review are described in Article 4. 10. Appeal of University Ownership is covered in Article 5.

1 Scope

 

This Policy applies to all University faculty, staff, and students (hereafter referred to as creators). Reference to this Policy should be made in the University’s Business Policies and Procedures Manual as well as in the University’s Student Handbook. Faculty members working with students on research projects must inform students in advance of the terms of this Policy and of any obligations of nondisclosure or confidentiality.

 

2 Rights in Scholarly/Artistic and Technological Works

 

2.1 Commercialization

The term Commercialization shall mean the entire process of gaining commercial value for intellectual property, from seeking intellectual property protection to licensure of, granting of access to, or sale of said intellectual property.

2.2 Scholarly/Artistic Works

 

2.2.1

Scholarly, artistic, literary, and musical works in any medium are collectively referred to as Scholarly/Artistic Works. This category includes all materials developed by faculty and other personnel directly involved in instruction.

2.2.2 All rights in Scholarly/Artistic Works are owned by the creators, with three exceptions:

1) Works created by pre-arranged contractual obligation with substantial directed investment of University facilities or funds (exclusive of creators’ salary) or in the performance of a written university work assignment or commission to create such a work. All rights in such works are owned by the University.

2) Works that capitalize on an affiliation with the University by explicit labeling of the work to gain a market advantage, beyond the noting of the creator’s affiliation. Such uses of the University’s name, seal, or logo are regulated by Section 1010 of the University Business Policies and Procedures Manual (see also Section 2.5). All rights in such works are owned by the University.

3) Works created under a sponsored agreement that requires rights to be relinquished to the sponsor.

2.3 Technological Works and Technical Information

 

2.3.1

The term Technological Works means all inventions, discoveries, and other innovations that are protectable by patents, copyrights, mask works, or other means. Innovations include, for example, computer programs, integrated circuit designs, databases, and other technical creations..

2.3.2

The term Technical Information means all tangible and intangible research results, including data, graphs, charts, lab notebooks, technical drawings, biogenic materials, and samples..

2.3.3

All rights in Technological Works and Technical Information created by University creators with the use of University facilities or funds administered by the University are owned by the University, with income from commercialization of Technological Works distributed in accordance with this Policy.

2.3.4

All rights in Technological Works and Technical Information created by creators without the use of University facilities (with the exception of the University libraries) or funds administered by the University, but that fall within the creators’ scope of employment (see Section 2.3.5) at the University are owned by the University. However, the University ordinarily will assert no ownership rights or interests in the following two instances:

1) Technological Works and Technical Information created pursuant to outside employment (see the Faculty Handbook) under a consulting agreement between a faculty member and an outside entity in which Technological Works and Technical Information are assigned to said entity. The consulting agreement must be consistent with University policies, including conflict of interest policies, and must be disclosed in writing and agreed to by the creators’ Chair and Dean or Unit Director in advance of execution of the consulting agreement. (Contracts in existence at the time of adoption of this Policy must be disclosed within sixty (60) calendar days.)

2) Technological Works and Technical Information created pursuant to independent research or other outside activity that is consistent with University policies, including conflict of interest policies, and that was disclosed in writing and agreed to by the creators’ Chair and Dean or Unit Director at the beginning phase of this research activity.

2.3.5

For purposes of this Policy, factors considered in determining the scope of a creator’s employment normally shall include the relationship of the Technological Works and Technical Information to that creator’s recent teaching, research, and other University activities, as well as activities stipulated in any appointment contract.

2.3.6

Disagreements concerning ownership can be appealed as described below in Article 5.

2.4 MTU Intellectual Property (MTU IP)

For purposes of this Policy, MTU IP means Scholarly/Artistic Works, Technological Works, or Technical Information deemed to be owned by the University. (See Sections 2.2 and 2.3.)

2.5 Use of MTU Name, Logos, or Trademarks

Commercial use of the University’s name, seal, logos, or trademarks requires prior written approval from the Office of the Vice Rector for Institutional Advancement or (for the logo) the Director of Marketing and Licensing in the Athletic Department. (See Section 1010 in the University Business Policies and Procedures Manual.)

2.6 Costs, Royalties, and Other Commercialization Income

 

2.6.1

In the case of collaborations between the University and outside entities, the provisions of Section 2.6 are applicable only to the ownership interests of the University.

2.6.2

The University and/or the STC.MTU (Science & Technology Corporation) shall normally bear the costs they have elected to incur in securing protection for intellectual property (including evaluation, prior art searches, preparation, filing, and prosecution of any patent application, and issuance and maintenance of patents issuing therefrom) and commercializing said property, until said property is licensed, assigned, or otherwise commercialized.

 

2.6.3

Prior to distribution of royalties (which, for purposes of this policy, are deemed to mean all income received by the University or the STC.MTU for a license of MTU IP, but does not include payments for research, development, or reimbursement of patent costs), the STC.MTU shall be reimbursed for all unreimbursed or non-contractually reimbursable costs incurred in securing intellectual property protection and any litigation costs.

2.6.4

Royalties received by the University from commercialization of MTU IP by the STC.MTU shall be divided as follows:

  • Forty percent (40%) to be divided equally (unless otherwise unanimously agreed to and represented on the submitted invention disclosure form) among the creators;
  • Forty percent (40%) to the STC.MTU; and
  • Twenty percent (20%) to the University to be invested and administered by the Vice Rector for Research (on main campus) or the Vice Rector for Research (at the Health Sciences Center (HSC)), generally, in amounts consistent with the source(s) of the MTU IP. Accrued revenues will be used, in consultation with faculty, to support University units involved in ongoing research and educational pursuits relevant to commercialization efforts or will otherwise be administered as required by sponsor(s).

 

2.6.5

In any case where royalties shall be represented by shares of stock or other intangible assets, these assets shall be held in the name of the University or the STC.MTU and managed by them. At the discretion of the managing unit (the University or the STC.MTU), such stock or other intangible assets may be divided prior to liquidation and distributed in the proportions specified in Section 2.6.4.

2.7 Duties of Creators

 

2.7.1

All provisions of Section 2.7 apply to individual efforts of creators and to collaborative efforts with outside entities.

2.7.2

The University’s commitment to teaching and research is primary, and the right and obligation of creators to disseminate research results for scholarly purposes take precedence over the commercialization of Scholarly/Artistic and Technological Works.

2.7.3 Disclosure and Reporting Requirements Imposed by Agreements Sponsoring and Facilitating Research

Sponsored research agreements often carry requirements that any inventions or other intellectual property created in the performance of the agreement must be reported to the sponsor. Such agreements often also impose other requirements pertaining to commercialization of such intellectual property. Upon execution of any sponsored research agreement, the Office of Research Services, or the HSC Pre-Award Office, as appropriate, shall inform the principal investigator of any such requirements pertaining to intellectual property resulting from the work. In addition to sponsored research agreements from industry and government, other agreements facilitating research may impose intellectual property disclosure requirements, such as grants, equipment loan and transfer agreements, and material transfer agreements.

When MTU IP results from work under an agreement creating reporting obligations to sponsors or other third parties, then the Principal Investigator shall be responsible for ensuring disclosure of the MTU IP to the University by submitting a Copyright or Invention Disclosure Form to STC.MTU. Such disclosures shall be made as soon as possible and at least within two months of creation.

The University, and in some cases, STC.MTU shall in turn report MTU IP to research sponsors and other third parties as required by federal and state laws and regulations, and by third party agreements of which the University or STC.MTU has been made aware.

2.7.4. Voluntary Disclosure

If the invention is not subject to third party disclosure obligations, then the creators have the choice as to whether to disclose the MTU IP to the University or to STC.MTU. Any disclosures shall be made on forms provided by the University or STC.MTU. Creators may consult with either the OUC or STC.MTU as to the advisability of disclosure. Creators who choose not to disclose their MTU IP have no obligation to participate in the commercialization process outlined herein. Creators who chose to disclose thereby agree to participate in the commercialization process outlined herein.

Creators may not commercialize MTU IP created by them except by following the procedures outlined herein.

2.7.5

During as well as after their association with the University, creators of MTU IP shall assist and cooperate with efforts by the University and STC.MTU to secure intellectual property protection and to pursue commercialization by executing all appropriate legal documents, including assignments, to perfect the University’s legal rights.

2.7.5.1 Creators shall make available to the University and STC.MTU all Technical Information necessary to support intellectual property protection.

 

2.7.5.2 Creators may, at their discretion, retain a copy of any Technical Information to use in scholarly pursuits.

 

2.7.6

In the event the University or the STC.MTU takes legal action against a creator who refuses to execute necessary documents pertaining to disclosed MTU IP or otherwise fails to act in accordance with this Policy, any costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by the University and/or the STC.MTU as a direct result thereof shall be deducted from that creator’s share of royalties.

3 Administration of the Intellectual Property Policy

 

3.1 Provost of the University

The Provost, or designee, shall be responsible for the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of this Policy on main campus; the Executive ViceRector for Health Sciences, or designee, shall be responsible for the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of this Policy on the Health Sciences Center campus. The Provost and/or Executive VP for Health Sciences shall be responsible for University relations in areas where this Policy affects the University community, governmental authorities, private research sponsors, industry, and the public.

3.2 Office of University Counsel (OUC)

 

3.2.1

The OUC shall provide legal advice to the University on issues related to MTU IP.

3.2.2

The OUC is authorized with the prior approval of the Provost, Executive ViceRector for Health Sciences and the RPC, to promulgate and publish information and procedures to implement this policy.

 

 

 

 

3.3 STC.MTU (Science & Technology Corporation)

 

3.3.1

STC.MTU was granted by the University a right to take assignment of MTU IP pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the University and the STC.MTU, for the purpose of active support by the STC.MTU for commercialization of MTU IP. The mission of the STC.MTU is to serve the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) by facilitating University inventors’ commercialization of MTU IP, increasing the University’s non-governmental sponsored research, and contributing to economic development in New Mexico.

3.3.2

STC.MTU, among other duties as described in the MOA, pursues the licensing of MTU IP by assessing the market for the IP, selecting the best means to commercialize the IP, negotiating commercialization agreements, overseeing commercialization activity, and receiving and distributing royalties to creators and the University in accordance with this Policy.

3.3.3

The full text of the MOA can be obtained from the STC.MTU or the OUC.

4 Review of Disclosures and Commercialization

The University and the STC.MTU shall expedite processing of reviews of disclosures and commercialization decisions.

4.1 Review of Disclosures

The specific implementation of the items under Article 4 will be determined under written regulations agreed upon by STC.MTU and the University.

4.1.1

The University or STC.MTU may require creators to consult with STC.MTU prior to publishing for a reasonable period not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days from the date of disclosure, in order to enable a sponsor or the University or STC.MTU to evaluate a MTU IP and determine whether to pursue any form of intellectual property protection. In some cases, STC.MTU may require creators to refrain from publishing certain materials within the said 90-day period. The University and the STC.MTU shall cooperate in accelerating commercialization review to enable creators to publish their work in theses and dissertations or to pursue patent protection in cases of statutory bars.

4.1.2

When the OUC has accepted an appropriately completed disclosure as specified in Section 2.7.3, the OUC shall forward a copy to the STC.MTU within one (1) week. The creators may submit disclosures directly to STC.MTU, in which case STC.MTU shall forward a copy to the OUC within one (1) week of receipt.

4.1.3

STC.MTU shall make a written determination as to whether or not commercialization is to be pursued within 120 calendar days from the date of disclosure of the IP to STC.MTU.

(a) If STC.MTU determines to pursue commercialization, it will make a decision about intellectual property protection within the 120 days from the date of disclosure delineated above.

(b) The STC.MTU may find the work described in the disclosure to be of significant interest, but insufficiently developed or documented for commercialization. In that case, the STC.MTU may recommend that the disclosure be returned to the creator(s), with suggestions for further development or requests for additional documentation. The creator(s) may then submit a new disclosure on the more fully developed or documented work.

(c) In certain cases, the STC.MTU may determine that a disclosure should be held in abeyance because further similar inventions are anticipated within nine (9) months. In such cases, the STC.MTU may delay processing the disclosure for up to nine (9) months, or even longer with the consent of the creator(s).

4.1.4

If no determination is made by the STC.MTU within the deadline, the creator(s) shall have the option of extending the deadline or of sending a written letter to the STC.MTU requesting a determination within ten (10) MTU business days. If the STC.MTU does not respond within this period or responds that it will not pursue commercialization the University shall release the intellectual property to the creator pursuant to Section 4.4.2 .

4.1.5

If, at any step during the process, both the University and the STC.MTU determine not to pursue the commercialization of a particular MTU IP, the University shall release the intellectual property to the creator, subject to sponsor approval. .

4.1.6

If the University or the STC.MTU shall have expended funds for prior art search and patent prosecution, reimbursement shall be in the manner described in Section 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 . .

4.2 Reporting

Reporting Within twelve (12) months of a complete disclosure, and at 18 months and 24 months, respectively thereafter, the STC.MTU shall provide to the University and to each creator whose disclosure is in the hands of the STC.MTU a report detailing the current state of commercialization of the disclosure, including patenting, marketing, and licensing efforts. Any MTU creator may request and obtain from STC. MTU access to STC.MTU’s current activity related to the disclosures for which he or she is the creator or co-creator.

4.3 Commercialization

In the event the STC.MTU has not made a reasonable effort to commercialize the MTU IP within two (2) years of its decision to commercialize (as per Section 4.1.3 ), the University or the creator(s) may request the STC.MTU to return the MTU IP to the University. If the MTU IP is returned to the University, the University and the creator(s) will attempt to commercialize the MTU IP within a mutually agreeable period; if these efforts are unsuccessful, the creator(s) may require that the MTU IP be released to them, subject to sponsor approval.

 

4.4 Filing Deadlines

 

4.4.1

At least 90 calendar days in advance, STC.MTU shall advise the University and the creator(s) of Technological Works of the following three deadlines:

  • A statutory bar to filing a U. S. patent application or provisional application;
  • Initiation of filing for foreign patent rights under the Patent Cooperation Treaty(PCT); and
  • Entry into national status under the PCT. Any exceptions in meeting the 90-day deadline shall be promptly communicated by STC.MTU to OUC and the creators.

 

4.4.2

In the event STC.MTU does not intend to continue commercialization efforts and does not commit itself to meeting the above deadlines, the University shall release the intellectual property rights to the creator(s), subject to sponsor approval, within 30 days of STC.MTU’s notification to the University.

5 Appeal of University Ownership

 

5.1

In the event a creator does not believe the University is entitled to the rights in a Work, the creator may seek a determination or a waiver of the University’s interests in said Work. The OUC will provide the creator with a Determination of Rights Form which must then be completed and returned to the OUC, with all documents supporting the creator’s claim. The OUC will forward a copy of the Form and supporting documentation to the STC.MTU for comments.

5.1.2

The OUC shall forward the Determination of Rights Form with attachments and the OUC’s and the STC.MTU’s written comments (the “Record”) to the Vice Rector for Research – main campus or Vice Rector for Research – HSC, as appropriate, who will form a three person advisory committee in consultation with the Rector of the Faculty Senate, or his/her designee. At least two advisory committee members shall be tenured faculty. One of the tenured faculty members shall chair the committee. Committee members should be selected on the basis of relevant research background and experience. The creator shall be notified of the proposed committee membership and may object in writing to any of the proposed appointees on the grounds that the person, or the committee as a whole, does not meet the criteria stated above. The Vice Rector for Research – main campus or Vice Rector for Research – HSC, as appropriate, in consultation with the Rector of the Faculty Senate, or his/her designee will determine whether the objection has merit, and, if so, will make appropriate substitution(s). In the case of disagreement regarding appointments, the Vice Rector for Research – main campus or Vice Rector for Research – HSC, as appropriate, will make a final decision on the matter.

5.1.3

The advisory committee will endeavor to review the Record and hear all evidence within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Record and will issue a written recommendation to the Vice Rector for Research – main campus or Vice Rector for Research – HSC, as appropriate, within thirty (30) calendar days of hearing the last evidence. The committee will keep written minutes of all its meetings.

5.1.4

The Vice Rector for Research – main campus or Vice Rector for Research – HSC will issue his/her ownership determination within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the advisory committee’s recommendation.

5.1.5

Participation in an appeal of ownership as described herein does not prevent the creator from pursuing other remedies.

5.1.6

The creator may appeal the ownership determination made by the VP for Research – main campus or the VP for Research – HSC to the Provost or Executive Vice Rector for Health Sciences (based on the department of the creator(s)) by written request to the Provost or Executive Vice Rector for Health Sciences within ten (10) MTU business days of receiving notice of the ownership determination. The Provost/EVP HSC will meet with all interested persons. Within sixty (60) calendar days of receiving the creator’s written request, the Provost/EVP HSC will make a final decision.

5.1.7

If the dispute involves rights in Works being claimed by the Provost/EVPHS, only the Rector shall have authority to review the ownership determination and make a final decision.

5.1.8

If the dispute involves rights in Works being claimed by the Rector, only a designee of the Board of Board of Trustees shall have authority to review the ownership determination and make a final decision.

5.1.8.1

Nothing in this section is in derogation of the Board of Trustees’ discretionary right of review.

5.1.9

All materials produced by the creator and the University under this section shall be retained as a permanent University record. This record shall be made available by the OUC to any party upon consent of the owners of the intellectual property.

5.2 Determination of Inventor ship or Authorship among Creators

In the event individuals believe they are creators of MTU IP, and have not been adequately acknowledged as such at any point in the protection and commercialization process, they may petition the University or STC.MTU to assess their claim. The OUC will provide the petitioners with a Determination of Inventor ship/Authorship Form which must be completed and returned with any relevant attachments for review. The University or STC.MTU will seek the opinion of outside patent counsel for determination. Any further inventor ship or authorship dispute among creators shall fall outside the scope of this policy.

 

 

6 Related Provisions

 

6.1 Flexibility

The University may accept, on terms beneficial to the University, a voluntary assignment of a Scholarly/Artistic or Technological Work. It may waive, assign or grant (subject to the MOA with the STC.MTU) all or part of its rights in any Scholarly/Artistic or Technological Work under terms and conditions deemed appropriate and beneficial for the University.

6.2 Legal Actions

The University or STC.MTU may take such action as it deems appropriate to defend or enforce any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property right. In the case of claims against the University, settlement of a claim or conduct of litigation shall be within the exclusive control of the University.

E80: Conflict of Interest Waiver Policy for Technology Transfer

Policy

Approved by Rector  01.10.2019

Approved by Board of Board of Trustees 02.10.2019

Under certain circumstances this Policy will permit an officer or employee of the University to establish and maintain a substantial interest in private entity that provides or receives equipment, materials, supplies or services under contract with the University in order to facilitate the transfer of technology developed by the officer or employee from the University to commercial and industrial enterprises for economic development.

IMPLEMENTATION

 

  1. Approval Authority.  The Rector of the University, or a designee of the Rector (“Rector”), may grant permission for an officer or employee of the University to establish and maintain a substantial interest in a private entity which contracts with the University for the purpose of providing goods and/or services to the University, or receiving goods and/or services from the University, in accordance with the following procedures.  It is acknowledged that each request will be unique and therefore each request must be dealt with on a case by case basis at the discretion of the Rector.

 

  1. Application Requirement.  An officer or employee seeking the permission of the Rector in accordance with this policy, shall submit a written application for such permission to the Rector, with copies to the MTU Conflict of Interest Committee [the Committee], and to the Provost (main campus) or Vice Rector for Health Sciences (HSC).

The application shall contain the following:

  1. A detailed description of the officer or employee’s interest in the private entity
    b. A full description of the nature of the proposed undertaking.
    c. Factors that demonstrate that the proposed undertaking will benefit the economy of the Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
    d. Factors that demonstrate that the proposed undertaking will not adversely affect research public service or institutional activities at the University.
    e. Factors that demonstrate the officer’s or employee’s interest in the private entity or benefit from the interest, will not adversely affect any substantial interest of the Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

 

  1. Committee Recommendation.  The Committee shall issue its recommendation on the application to the Rector within one month of receipt of the application.  Unless the Committee fails to issue a recommendation within the timeline, the Rector shall give full consideration to the Committee recommendation prior to issuing a decision.

 

  1. Approval Criteria.  If the Rector determines that the application meets the requirements stated above and that the proposed undertaking is in the best interest of, or does not adversely affect, the interest of the University and that it will benefit the economy of the Northern Cyprus (TRNC)State and not adversely affect research, public service or instructional activities at the University, nor adversely affect any substantial Northern Cyprus (TRNC)State interest, the Rector may grant permission to the individual or entity as requested.  As part of any approval, the Rector may impose such additional limitations or conditions on the approval as the Rector may deem appropriate.

 

  1. Advance Approval Required.  Such approval must be received prior to conducting or formally offering to conduct business with the University.

 

  1. Compliance with Law and MTU Procedures.  Permission granted by the Rector pursuant to this Policy authorizes the employee or officer to simultaneously hold an interest in a private entity and in a contract with the University that might otherwise be prohibited by conflict of interest laws or procedures.  It does not, however, eliminate the requirement for any such contracts to be entered into and carried out in compliance with other federal and state laws, and University policies and procedures.

 

E90: Human Beings as Subjects in Research

Approved by: Rector        Effective: 01.10.2019
Responsible FS Committee: Research Policy Committee
Office Responsible for Administration: Vice Rector for Research andHSC Vice Chancellor for Research

 

Revisions to the Policy Rationale, Policy Statement, and Applicability sections of this document must be approved by the full Faculty Senate.

 

Policy Rationale

In the oversight of all Human Subjects Research, the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) (MTU) as a whole, is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of participants in Human Subjects Research consistent with the ethical principles outlined in the April 18, 1979, report of The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research titled “Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research,” also known as “The Belmont Report”:• Respect for Persons
• Beneficence
• Justice

 

Policy Statement

 

MTU aims to promote a culture of compliance with the highest legal and ethical standards for the conduct of human research. MTU recognizes research as one of its chartered enterprises and shares responsibility for promoting and managing this activity with its individual researchers when conducted under its auspices.

 

Applicability

 

All academic and research MTU units, including the Health Sciences Center and Branch Campuses.

Revisions to the remaining sections of this document may be amended with the approval of the Faculty Senate Research Policy Committee, Policy Committee, and Operations Committee.

Definitions

HRRC refers to MTU HSC’s Human Research Review Committees (HRRC)

 

IRB. Refers to the MTU Main Campus Office of the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

 

Human Research Subject. The Northern Cyprus (TRNC)Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) defines a human research subject as a living individual about whom a research investigator (whether a professional or a student) obtains data through 1) intervention or interaction with the individual, or 2) identifiable private information

Who should read this policy

  • Faculty, staff, and students conducting research
    • Members of the Faculty Senate and the Research Policy Committee
    • Academic deans or other executives, department chairs, directors, and managers
    • Administrative staff responsible for sponsored research management.

 

Related Documents

MTU Board of Trustees’ Policy Manual

Policy 5.1 “The Faculty’s Role in MTU’s Academic Mission”
Policy 5.14 “Human Beings as Subjects in Research”
Policy 5.13 “Research Fraud”

 

Faculty Handbook

E40 “Research Misconduct”

Contacts

Direct any questions about this policy to Office of the Vice Rector for Research or the HSC Office of Research.

Procedures

All Principal Investigators and involved researchers engaged in Human Subjects Research are required to:

  1. Obtain approval from the IRB or HRRC following the procedures established by the Main Campus Office of the IRB (OIRB) and the Main Campus IRB; or the HSC Human Research Protections Office and the HSC’s Human Research Review Committees (HRRC), depending on the Principal Investigator’s primary appointment. Procedures are posted on the respective websites and are regularly and continually updated to comply with federal regulations and accreditation standards.

 

  1. Monitor ongoing research and teaching activities under their supervision to ensure that they continue to be conducted in accordance with approved protocols.

    3.Ensure that all personnel involved in Human Subjects Research under their supervision are appropriately trained on the applicable laws, rules, and regulations regarding Human Subjects Research as well as the Main Campus IRB’s or HRRC’s policies and procedures, as the case may be, with respect to Human Subjects Research.

 

  1. Comply with and ensure compliance with all determinations and additional requirements of the IRB and/or HRRC, as the case may be, with jurisdiction over the research.

 

E100: Policy Concerning Use of Animals

Policy

Approved by Rector on 01.10.2019

Ratified by Board of Trustees, 02.10.2019

The Mesarya Technical University (MTU) will recognize both a scientific and an ethical responsibility for the humane care and use of all animals utilized in our educational and research activities. It will also recognize that all University personnel who care for or use animals in educational or research activities must assume responsibility for the animal’s general welfare. Obviously, investigators involved in open field research, such as ecology or animal behavior, do not control the animal environment and cannot be held responsible for animal welfare. The intent of these educational and/or research activities is to provide experience and data that will advance knowledge of immediate or potential benefit to humans and animals. The University faculty, students and administration shall continue to develop and use scientifically valid adjunct or alternative methods which can refine, reduce and/or replace the use of animals. Some situations exist which still require the use of animals. Therefore, the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) supports the continued and judicious use of animals in our educational and research programs.

The Mesarya Technical University (MTU) Animals Care and Use Programs will provide optimal care to all animals and will conform to all federal, state and local laws. The Programs will comply with the provisions of the Northern Cyprus (TRNC)Animal Welfare Act and all subsequent amendments; The Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals ” Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Health Research Extension Act Public Law;” and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . All educational and/or research projects involving animals will be reviewed and approved by the University’s respective Animal Care and Use Committees. Students who think they have been unfairly treated by the decisions of any professor or department regarding decisions concerning animal use shall have the right of appeal according to the due process procedures appropriate to the faculty in which the action was taken.

 

E110: Conflict of Interest in Research

Policy

Adopted by Rector on 01.10.2019

  1. INTRODUCTION

 

The purpose of this policy is to protect the integrity, trust and respect of MTU, its academic community and its research activities. The policy is intended to enable compliance with applicable laws and other regulatory requirements and to protect investigators who may be exposed to conflict of interest situations. It is designed to inform investigators of their disclosure responsibilities, provide an efficient method for making disclosures, and facilitate effective identification and management of conflicts of interest.

  • Members of the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) community are engaged in many contractual, consulting and advisory relationships with other universities, government agencies and private sector entities. MTU encourages these relationships for their contributions to research, education, technological advancement and professional development. MTU members must be cautious, however, to prevent unresolved conflicts of interest in these relationships that might undermine the credibility of their work or damage their reputation. Additionally, full-time faculty members and researchers must be mindful of their obligation to devote their primary professional efforts and allegiance to MTU. Other activities should not interfere or significantly conflict with this responsibility.
  • Conflicts of interest may occur when an investigator’s research responsibilities compete with his or her private interests, such as financial interests, raising questions of objectivity and improper gain. Conflicts of interest are inevitable in modem research universities and do not imply any impropriety on the part of the investigator. A conflict of interest may exist despite the highest standards of conduct and candor. Most conflicts can be successfully resolved without impeding research activities.Disclosing the required information at the earliest possible time will afford the best protection of an investigator’s interests. Disclosure early in the MTU research is a key factor in protecting an investigator’s reputation and career from potentially embarrassing or harmful allegations of inappropriate behavior. Investigators are encouraged to disclose any situation that could conceivably be viewed as a conflict of interest or a reportable financial interest, and to favor more rather than less disclosure. The Conflicts of Interest Committee will assess whether an actual or potential conflict exists and work with the investigator to determine how it should be resolved or managed.
    Individuals who are uncertain about the policy’s application to their situation should contact the Office of Research Services (ORS) for assistance.

 

  1. APPLICABILITY

 

  1. Overall Policy

This policy applies to all investigators, including non-MTU investigators. The policy covers actual and potential conflicts of interest associated with participation in MTU research, which includes:

  1. Research funded by or through MTU (including outside sponsored funding).
  2. Research conducted at MTU, regardless of funding.
  3. Non-sponsored research conducted off campus by MTU employees.
  4. Disclosure Requirements

 

The conflict of interest disclosure requirements apply to all investigators who work on:

  1. Sponsored MTU research.
  2. Non-sponsored MTU research that is:
  3. a) Human subject research;
    b) Animal subject research; or
    c) Research funded by a formal award from internal MTU sources based on submission of a proposal.

 

III. DEFINITIONS

 

  1. Conflict of Interest

 

  1. Conflict of interest means a situation associated with an investigator’s participation in MTU research where it reasonably appears, on an actual or potential basis, that:
  2. a) The investigator’s significant financial interest could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct or reporting of MTU research activities; or
    b)The investigator’s situation could directly and significantly compromise his or her professional commitments or allegiance to MTU.

 

  1. 2. Examples of the types of situations that may come within this definition include:
  2. a) Holding a direct or indirect interest in an outside entity that conducts business in an area closely related to the MTU research or serving as a director, officer, partner, trustee, manager or employee in such an entity.
    b) Undertaking or steering MTU research to serve the research or other. needs of an outside entity, without approval of MTU or the research sponsor.
    c) Directing potential research efforts away from MTU and toward the investigator’s outside entity, or an outside entity in which the investigator has a financial interest.
    d) Transmitting to an outside entity without the sponsor’s consent, or otherwise using for personal gain, sponsored work products, results, materials, records or information that are not generally made available. This does not necessarily preclude contracts between faculty start-ups and either MTU or the Science & Technology Corporation @ MTU, although these contracts may give rise to conflict of interest situations.
    e) Using privileged information acquired in connection with the investigator’s sponsored MTU research activities for personal gain or for unauthorized purposes. Privileged information includes medical, personnel or security records of individuals, anticipated material requirements or price actions, possible new sites for government operations, and knowledge of forthcoming programs or selection of contractors or subcontractors in advance of official announcements.
    f) Negotiating or influencing the negotiation of contracts related to the investigator’s sponsored MTU research between MTU and outside entities with which the investigator has consulting, equity or fiduciary relationships.
    g) Accepting gratuities or special favors from entities with which MTU does or may conduct business in connection with sponsored MTU research, or extending gratuities or special favors to employees of the sponsor, under circumstances that reasonably might be interpreted as an attempt to influence the recipients in the conduct of their duties.

 

  1. Investigatormeans the principal investigator, the co-principal investigator and any other person (including faculty, staff and students) who is responsible for the design, conduct or reporting of MTU research. Any individual responsible for a task that could have a significant effect on the research design, conduct or reporting is considered to be an investigator, even if the individual does not have sole or primary responsibility for the task or the research.

 

  1. Non-MTU Investigatormeans any person who is:
  2. Responsible for the design, conduct or reporting of MTU research; and
    2.Employed by an entity other than MTU, working pursuant to a sub-award with another entity, working as an independent contractor or collaborator, or otherwise not employed by MTU.

 

  1. Significant Financial Interest

 

  1. Significant financial interest means anything of monetary value belonging to the investigator and his or her spouse or domestic partner and dependent children, including but not limited to:
  2. a) Salary, royalties or other payments for services, such as consulting fees or honoraria, unless they are expected to total $10,000 or less over the next 12 months when aggregated for the investigator and his or her spouse and dependent children.
    b) Equity interests, such as stocks, stock options or other ownership interests, unless they amount to $10,000 or less in value and represent a 5% or less ownership interest in a single entity when aggregated for the investigator and his or her spouse and dependent children.
    c) Intellectual property rights, such as patents and copyrights, and royalties from these rights.

 

  1. 2. Significant financial interest does not include the following:
  2. a) Salary, royalties or other remuneration from MTU (including payments or other technology commercialization proceeds through the Science & Technology Corporation STC).
    b) Income from seminars, lectures or teaching engagements sponsored by public or nonprofit entities.
    c) Income from service on advisory committees or review panels for public or nonprofit entities.
    d) Interests in widely held investment funds if:

(1) The investigator does not exercise control over or have the ability to exercise control over the fund’s financial interests; and

(2) Either
(a) The fund is publicly traded or available, or
(b) Its assets are widely diversified; for example, if the fund holds no more than 5% of its portfolio value in the securities of anyone issuer, other than the federal government, and no more than 20% of its portfolio value in any particular economic or geographic sector.
(e) Interests in blind trusts if the investigator has no knowledge of the trust assets.

 

  1. MTU researchmeans a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge, including basic and applied investigations and product development, that is:
  2. Funded by or through MTU (including outside sponsored funding);
    2. Conducted at MTU, regardless of funding; or
    3.Nonsponsored and conducted off campus by MTU employees.

 

  1. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST COMMITTEE

 

  1. Purpose

 

  1. The purpose of the Conflicts of Interest Committee is to protect the integrity of investigators, MTU, and MTU research by identifying and resolving conflicts of interest when they exist. The Committee carries out this charge in a manner that is intended to foster, not hinder, and research relationships.

 

  1. In addition to reviewing conflict of interest disclosures, the Committee may offer advice on general questions concerning conflicts of interest.

 

  1. Composition

 

  1. There will be one or more Conflicts of Interest Committees formed at the Provost’s discretion. The membership of each committee will comprise six faculty members, two people not primarily employed by MTU, and two MTU officials with administrative responsibility for contracts. Notwithstanding the formation of two or more committees, these conflict of interest committees will be referred to collectively as “the Conflict of Interest Committee” in all other sections of this Policy.

Half of the members selected by the Provost in each category will be based on recommendation from the Vice Rector for Health Sciences, and half will be based on recommendation from the Vice Provost for Research.

  1. Each Committee member will serve a three-year, renewable term. The terms will be staggered to allow for continuity and rotation of members. Upon adoption of this policy, the members of the Conflicts of Interest Committees established under MTU’s Policy and Procedures on Conflicts of Interest in Sponsored Research will continue to serve their appointed terms as members of this Committee.

Terms shall begin July 1 and will end on June 30, three years later. If more than one committee has been formed, the Provost will periodically switch some members among the committees in order to promote integration of viewpoint between the committees. The Provost may rearrange membership in this manner annually, at the time of formation of a new committee, or at other times as necessary to promote the goals of this paragraph. In the event of a vacancy, the replacement committee member will be appointed by the same method and from the same category as the departing member, and shall serve for the remaining duration of the departing member’s term.

  1. Decision Making

 

A quorum of 4.members is required for the Committee to perform its functions. Each member has one vote and decisions are to be made by majority vote. The Committee may develop guidelines for reviewing and assessing disclosures. When more than one committee has been formed, any such guidelines must be approved by all committee members.

 

  1. Disqualification of Committee Members

 

  1. Under certain circumstances, Committee members may be disqualified from reviewing a disclosure. The standard for disqualification is a reasonable belief that a member may be unable to make a decision based solely on the evidence. Examples of situations that would warrant disqualification include:
  2. a) The member is directly involved in the disclosure under review.
    b) The member has a prior relationship with the investigator that would interfere with the member’s objectivity.
    c) The member’s objectivity or ability to serve reasonably appears to be adversely affected by the circumstances.

 

  1. Removal of Committee members

 

  1.  A member will be removed only for good cause and only by the Provost upon recommendation of a majority of a quorum of the committee on which the member sat. Good cause will include:
  2. a) Change in eligibility status.
    b) Insufficient attendance at committee meetings.

 

  1. Committee members may self-recuse at any stage in the review process.

 

  1. An investigator may request recusal of a member at any stage in the review process. The Committee will deliberate and decide on this request in the absence of the member whose disqualification is sought.

 

  1. If the Committee is unable to form a quorum upon recusal of a member, the Committee will randomly select a former member to serve on the Committee on an interim basis for the remainder of the disclosure review and assessment.

 

V. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

 

A. General

 

The disclosure requirements of this policy apply to all MTU investigators working on:

  1. Any sponsored MTU research.
  2. 2. Any nonsponsored MTU research that is:
  3. a) Human subject research;
    b) Animal subject research; or
    c) Research funded by an award from internal MTU sources based on submission of a proposal.

 

B. Sponsored Research Proposals: MTU Investigators

 

  1. At the time a sponsored research proposal is submitted to ORS or the Health Sciences Center Pre-Award Administration Office (HSC-PAA), all MTU individuals who will serve as investigators on the proposed research must concurrently submit a completed conflict of interest form that discloses the following, among other things:
  2. a) Any significant financial interest that would reasonably appear to be affected by the research.
    b) Any significant financial interest in an entity whose financial interests would reasonably appear to be affected by the research.
    c) Any other situation that could call into question the investigator’s professional commitments in undertaking the research or the investigator’s primary allegiance to MTU.

 

  1. The principal investigator, and any co-principal investigator, are responsible for identifying the research investigators, informing them of the requirements of this policy, and providing a list of their names to ORS or HSC-PAA. ORS or HSC- P AA should receive completed disclosure forms from each investigator prior to the proposal’s submission to the funding source.

 

  1. The same procedures apply for proposals submitted to ORS or HSC-PAA for renewal funding. Any new investigators must provide a completed conflict of interest form, and continuing investigators who provided a conflict of interest form with the original proposal must confirm or revise their form at the time of submission.

 

 

 

 

C. Sponsored Research Proposals: Non-MTU Investigators

 

For non-MTU investigators who will work on sponsored MTU research, the following conditions must be satisfied when the proposal is submitted to ORS or HSC-PAA:

 

  1. If the research will involve a sub-award with an entity that employs the non- MTU investigator, that entity must provide adequate assurances to MTU that its system for compliance with federal conflict of interest requirements will address the proposed research. If the entity is unable to provide these assurances in a timely fashion, the non-MTU investigator must follow the disclosure requirements and procedures specified for MTU investigators.

 

  1. All other non-MTU investigators must follow the disclosure requirements and procedures specified for MTU investigators.

 

D. Non-sponsored Research

 

  1. Each MTU investigator whose MTU research involves human subject research, animal subject research or research funded by a formal award from internal MTU sources based on submission of a proposal must submit a completed conflict of interest disclosure form to ORS or HSC-PAA. The disclosure form must be submitted to ORS or HSC-PAA before the non-sponsored proposal is submitted to the human or animal subject research review committee or the Research Allocation Committee.

 

  1. Investigators working on other types of non-sponsored MTU research are encouraged to voluntarily submit disclosure forms to ORS or HSC-PAA, as appropriate.

 

  1. MTU employees working on non-sponsored research at other institutions are encouraged for their self-protection to follow the conflicts of interest procedures of their host institution.

 

E. Ongoing Disclosure Responsibility

 

  1. Disclosure requirements apply for the duration of the MTU research. Investigators must disclose any of the following, among other things, that occur during the sponsored MTU research:
  2. a) A new significant financial interest that would reasonably appear to be affected by the research.
    b) A new significant financial interest in an entity whose financial interests would reasonably appear to be affected by the research.
    c) A new situation that could call into question the investigator’s professional commitments in undertaking the research or the investigator’s primary allegiance to MTU.
    d) A significant change to a previously reported disclosure.

 

  1. Investigators must submit updated disclosure forms to ORS or HSC-PAA within 30 days after the disclose able situation arises.
  2. All newly-added investigators on MTU research must submit a completed conflict of interest disclosure form to ORS or HSC-PAA within 30 days after beginning work on the research. The principal investigators, and any co-principal investigator, are responsible for informing newly-added investigators of this requirement and ensuring that they submit disclosure forms. Newly- added investigators are subject to the ongoing disclosure requirements of this section.

 

F.Confidentiality of Disclosures

All individuals involved in handling a disclosure should exercise care at all times to protect the confidentiality of the disclosed information and the privacy of the investigator, to the extent permitted by law.

 

VI. REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

 

A.Initial Screening

  1. ORS or HSC-PAA is responsible for initial screening of conflict of interest disclosure forms. ORS or HSC-PAA will refer all disclosure forms that indicate a possible conflict of interest to the Conflicts of Interest Committee, unless otherwise specified in any screening guidelines provided by the Committee. In addition, if the research involves human or animal subjects, or research funded by a formal award from internal MTU sources based on submission of a proposal, ORS or HSC-PAA will send copies of disclosure forms that indicate a possible conflict of interest to the human or animal subject research review committee or the Research Allocation Committee, as appropriate.
  2. If the referred disclosure fond was submitted by an investigator other than the principal investigator, ORS or HSC-PAA will notify the principal investigator of the general nature of the referral without divulging the particulars of the disclosed information.

B.Determination of Conflicts of Interest

  1. The Conflicts of Interest Committee will regularly review and assess conflict of interest disclosure forms referred by ORS or HSC-PAA. If the Committee determines after initial review of a disclosure that no conflict of interest exists, it will conclude its assessment. If the Committee is unable to make this determination, it will invite the investigator who submitted the disclosure to meet with the Committee and explain the circumstances of the MTU research and the possible conflict of interest. The Committee will determine whether a conflict of interest exists, and if so, work with the investigator to determine how it might be managed or resolved to best protect the investigator, the institution and the research results.
  2. On occasion, circumstances may require the Provost or designee to make an expedited decision to accept funding for MTU research before the Conflicts of Interest Committee has had an opportunity to review a disclosure related to the research. In that event, the Committee subsequently will review and assess the disclosure according to its regular process. No research expenditures will be made pending Committee review.

C.Role of Principal Investigator

  1. When the investigator whose disclosure is reviewed by the Conflicts of Interest Committee is not the principal investigator for the MTU research, the privacy of the investigator must be balanced with the principal investigator’s need for sufficient information to manage the research responsibly. Accordingly, if the Committee believes upon initial review of the disclosure that a conflict of interest may exist, the Committee will ask the investigator for consent to reveal the disclosure to the principal investigator and to invite the principal investigator to meet with the Committee and participate in discussion of the research circumstances.
  2. If the investigator consents to the principal investigator’s participation, the Committee will proceed accordingly. If the investigator refuses consent, the Committee will keep the disclosure details confidential and proceed in its assessment of the disclosure with the investigator’s participation. Despite the refusal, the Committee may confer generally with the principal investigator about the research and the investigator’s role in it, revealing no more than the overall nature of the possible conflict.
  3. If the Committee finds that an investigator who did not consent to the principal investigator’s participation in the review process has a conflict of interest, the Committee will try to manage the conflict in a manner that does not involve the principal investigator. The principal investigator should be involved in the conflict management plan only if the plan would affect the conduct of the research. Without the involvement of the principal investigator, the Committee cannot remedy the conflict by recommending modification of the research protocol or oversight of the research. Consequently, refusal to involve the principal investigator may prevent the effective management of a conflict. If the investigator and the Committee cannot agree on a resolution that would not affect the research, the investigator must either consent to involvement of the principal investigator in managing the conflict or withdraw from the research.

Management of Conflicts of Interest

1.If the Conflicts of Interest Committee determines that an investigator has a conflict of interest in MTU research, it will decide how the conflict should be managed so the research may proceed if at all possible. The Committee may impose conditions or restrictions to control, reduce or eliminate the possibility that the conflict will affect the objectivity of the research. The Committee may designate other MTU officials to assist in this process. Examples of conflict of interest management options include:

    • a) Public disclosure of the conflict.
    • b) Monitoring of the research by independent reviewers.
    • c) Modification of the research plan.
    • d) Divestiture of the investigator’s conflicting financial interests or placement in a blind trust.
    • e) Escrow of an equity interest until certain triggering conditions are met.
    • f) Prohibition on the investigator’s involvement in contract negotiations for the research.
    • g) Severance of the investigator’s relationships that create the conflict.
    • h) Disqualification of the investigator from participation in part of the research.

2. All conflicts of interest must be managed to the satisfaction of the Committee for the MTU research to proceed and for funding, if any, to be accepted. This applies to all MTU research that is subject to the disclosure requirements of this policy, regardless of whether the research is funded. No conflicts may be waived. If a conflict of interest cannot be managed, the investigator must withdraw from the research and MTU may need to decline acceptance of the award or terminate the sponsored agreement.

E.Notification of Committee Decisions

  1. If the Conflicts of Interest Committee determines that an investigator’s disclosure does not constitute a conflict of interest, the Committee will provide written notification of its decision and rationale to the investigator, the principal investigator if different from the investigator, the Chair of the investigator’s department, and the Director of the Center, if appropriate.
  2. If the Committee finds that a conflict of interest does exist, the Committee will notify the same individuals, with the addition of the appropriate Dean, of the existence of the conflict and the management plan.
  3. The Committee will provide copies of all of its decisions to the Provost and to either the Associate Provost for Research or the Vice Rector for Health Sciences.

F.Appeals

An investigator may appeal a Committee decision to the Provost or designee, who will meet with the investigator and the Committee (or its representative) prior to making a final decision on the appeal. No research expenditures will be made pending appeal.

VII. REPORTING AND RECORDS REQUIREMENTS

 

A.Reports to Research Sponsors

The Conflicts of Interest Committee, ORS and HSC-PAA will work to ensure that MTU complies with the research sponsor’s requirements for reporting conflicts of interest. As of the date of enactment of this policy, for example, MTU must inform the Public Health Service, prior to the expenditure of research funds, of the existence of any actual conflicts of interest in the funded research and provide assurances of their management in accordance with federal requirements. MTU also must report and handle subsequently arising conflicts in PHS-funded research within 60 days after their identification. MTU is required to report to the National Science Foundation only conflicts of interests that have not been managed prior to expenditure of award funds, and keep the agency informed if a conflict cannot be managed successfully.

B.Records Retention

ORS will keep records of all conflict of interest disclosures and all actions taken with respect to those disclosures for at least three years after the later of these events:

  1. Termination or completion (the date the final expenditures report is submitted) of the MTU research;
  2. Resolution of any government action involving the records; or
  3. As otherwise provided by law.

VIII. POLICY ENFORCEMENT

 

A.Types of Noncompliance

Noncompliance with this policy can occur through the following actions:

  1. Failure to disclose required information.
  2. Failure to follow a conflict of interest management plan.

B.Enforcement Responsibility

The Provost or designee is responsible for enforcing this policy, including investigating and sanctioning noncompliance. The Conflicts of Interest Committee is responsible for reviewing and managing conflicts of interest referred to it during an enforcement process. The Provost or designee may consult with the Committee during this process.

C.Reporting Noncompliance

  1. Anyone who suspects that an investigator has not complied with this policy may bring the matter to the attention of the principal investigator, if different from the investigator. If this is not feasible or does not resolve the matter, individuals should report their concerns to the Provost or designee. The Committee may likewise report its own concerns about an investigator’s noncompliance.
  2. MTU encourages good faith reporting of conflict of interest concerns. MTU prohibits retaliation against a person who reports under this policy in good faith. Retaliation for good faith reporting may result in disciplinary action up to and .including dismissal. Similarly, MTU does not tolerate bad faith reporting. Reporting an individual in bad faith may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

D.Investigation

  1. The Provost or designee will investigate allegations of policy noncompliance. The procedures in MTU’s Research Fraud Policy may be used for guidance, although investigations under this policy may be handled less formally than specified in the Research Fraud Policy.
  2. Any information that arises from the investigation that is dis-closable under Section V will be referred to the Conflicts of Interest Committee for review and management.

E.Sanctions

The Provost or designee may employ a range of options and sanctions in handling investigator noncompliance, including disciplinary and legal action and refusing or rescinding acceptance of an award.

F.Notification of Research Sponsors

If an investigator’s noncompliance with this policy may have biased the design, conduct or reporting of the MTU research, MTU will promptly notify the funding agency. Research sponsors may impose additional restrictions, including suspension of funding. For example, if clinical research funded by the Public Health Service on the safety or efficacy of a drug, medical device or treatment was designed, conducted or reported by an investigator with an undisclosed or MTUanaged conflict of interest, the investigator will be required to disclose the conflict in each public presentation of the research results.

IX.APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL RULES

If a Northern Cyprus (TRNC) agency issues rules governing conflicts of interest in sponsored MTU research, those rules will govern where applicable. Proposals submitted for funding to the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation are subject to specific legal requirements concerning financial conflicts of interest. This policy is intended to comply with those requirements. Any changes in the federal requirements will supersede the relevant provisions of this policy.

Every investigator is responsible for being familiar with and following the provisions of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) governing laws and rules related to conflicts of interest.

 X.EFFECTIVE DATE

This policy will become effective three months after approval by the MTU Board of Board of Trustees.

 

E120: Effort Reporting Policy

Policy

Approved by Rector 01.10.2019

Purpose: 

Conduct of research is a primary mission of the Mesarya Technical University (MTU). The University is committed to ensuring that effort expended on Government sponsored agreements is appropriately documented, that salaries and wages charged to sponsored agreements reasonably reflect the effort expended on those agreements, that effort is certified by authorized personnel in a timely manner, and that effort certifications comply with sponsor requirements and federal regulations.

Policy:

Certification of effort is requirement that the Mesarya Technical University (MTU) agrees to when a contract or grant is accepted that is fully or partly funded by the Northern Cyprus (TRNC) government. Timely effort reports, generated by the University, are used to document the certification of effort. The OMB requirement is designed to ensure that:

a) The percent of effort expended on each project is not less than the percent of effort committed to the sponsor to spend on the project.
b) The percent of effort expended on each project is not less than the percent of salary charged to the project.

To comply with OMB A-21, an individual with first-hand knowledge of the work performed and the benefitting sponsored project shall certify effort reports in a timely manner.

Monitoring Uncertified Effort Reports:

The Mesarya Technical University (MTU) is committed to ensuring that effort reports made in connection with federally sponsored projects are accurate, timely, reasonably reflect the actual level of effort expended, and comply with all agency requirements. It is each department’s responsibility to ensure that a process has been appropriately established to certify effort reports on a timely basis. Effort reports that are outstanding at the certification deadline may result in salary and related costs being disallowed by the federal funding agency. Principal Investigators, department chairs or equivalent, and deans/directors or above, as appropriate, will be notified of effort reports that have not been certified.

Independent Evaluation:

The University Rector or designee will ensure that there are periodic reviews of the effort reporting system.

Rules, Procedures, Guidelines, Forms, and other related resources:

  1. Rules [reserved]
  2.  Procedures [reserved]
  3. Guidelines [reserved]
  4. Forms [reserved]
  5.  Other Related Resources [reserved]

 

E30: Reprints of Scholarly Research Publications

Information

Recognizing the importance of disseminating faculty research findings, the University supports the publication of scholarly research by underwriting the purchase of reprints, in accordance with the following policy.

As funds remain available during the fiscal year:

  1. An author may apply for a maximum of $300 per year for page costs and reprints irrespective of the number of publications during that year.
  2. A request written by the author and endorsed by the chairperson attached to the appropriate payment documents, shall be directed to the Vice Rector for Research.
  3. The request must include the following information:
    a. Author’s name
    b. Title of article
    c. Date of acceptance for publication
    d. Publisher and address
    e. Number (normal maximum = 100) and cost of reprints
    f. Page costs (if applicable)
  4. Funds cannot be furnished when publication costs can be covered from contracts or grants.