WORKFLOW: Handling Alleged Research Misconduct at VinUniversity

WORKFLOW: Handling Alleged Research Misconduct at VinUniversity

This workflow outlines the below 6 standardized stages for receiving, assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of research misconduct at VinUniversity, ensuring fairness, transparency, and compliance with institutional and legal requirements.

All individuals involved must complete the required forms according to their assigned responsibilities, including the Allegation Submission FormPreliminary Screening RecordRAC Review & Recommendation Form, and COEC Final Decision & Notification Form.

All parties must comply with the VinUniversity Research Integrity Policy, ensuring honesty, fairness, and confidentiality.

Stage 1. Allegation Received

StepDescriptionResponsible Units / Persons
1.1 Submission of AllegationAllegation or complaint received from any individual (internal or external) via official channels (EmailAllegation Submission Form, etc.)Must include supporting evidence if available.Reporter
1.2 Initial Receipt and RegistrationRMO receives and logs the allegation.Ensures confidentiality and whistleblower protection.Assigns internal tracking code.RMO

Stage 2. Preliminary Review

StepDescriptionResponsible Units / Persons
2.1 Document ReviewRMO conducts preliminary review of the allegation and supporting materials.Verifies that it falls under the scope of “research integrity misconduct.”RMO
2.2 Clarification MeetingRMO may invite the accused to provide clarification or additional information.Related entities may involve in clarification (if any): Supervisors, College Deans, Head of Research Centers (or their delegated representatives)All exchanges are documented by Preliminary Screening RecordRMO, Respondent
2.3 Initial Report to RACRMO summarizes findings and submits to the Research Affairs Committee (RAC) for screening.RMO → RAC

Stage 3. Screening by RAC

StepDescriptionResponsible Units / Persons
3.1 Evaluate Case TypeRAC determines if it is a clear-cut case (meeting all 3 criteria): (i) Misconduct is clearly evident; (ii) All elements of misconduct are met; (iii) Accused admits in writing.RAC
3.2 Outcome A – Clear-cut CaseIf all 3 criteria are met → RAC recommends disciplinary actions by RAC Review & Recommendation Form → forward to COEC for final decision.RAC → COEC
3.3 Outcome B – Unclear/Complex Case      If any criterion is not met → RAC requests additional review:Further document checksWitness interviewsFull RAC deliberation meeting (Stage 4)RAC

Stage 4. Full Deliberation

StepDescriptionResponsible Units / Persons
4.1 RAC DeliberationRAC discusses findings and evidence; formulates recommendation for disciplinary actions.RAC
4.2 Recommendation SubmittedRAC submits recommendation to COEC for final decision by RAC Review & Recommendation FormRAC → COEC

Stage 5. Final Decision & Notification

StepDescriptionResponsible Units / Persons
5.1 COEC ReviewCOEC reviews RAC’s recommendation, verifies process compliance, and issues formal decision by COEC Final Decision & Notification FormCOEC
5.2 NotificationCOEC (through RMO) notifies the accused, relevant units (HR, CPL, SAM, Dean, etc.), and ensures record-keeping.COEC / RMO
5.3 RecordkeepingCPL and HR record the case in Compliance and HR systems respectively; RMO archives case documents.CPL, HR, RMO

Stage 6. Appeal (If Applicable)

StepDescriptionResponsible Units / Persons
6.1 Appeal SubmissionThe accused may submit a written appeal within defined timeframe.Respondent
6.2 Appeal ReviewRAC re-evaluates case if valid grounds presented.RAC
6.3 Final DecisionCOEC issues final decision by COEC Final Decision & Notification Form after considering RAC’s re-evaluation.COEC

Confidentiality Disclaimer:

All information in these forms is confidential and used solely for handling alleged research misconduct. Any unauthorized disclosure or misuse may result in disciplinary or legal actions under VinUniversity regulations and applicable laws.