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 Form, Preliminary Screening Record, RAC 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

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

 

Stage 2. Preliminary Review

Step	Description	Responsible Units / Persons
2.1 Document Review	RMO conducts preliminary review of the allegation and supporting materials. Verifies that it falls under the scope of “research integrity misconduct.”	RMO
2.2 Clarification Meeting	RMO 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 Record	RMO, Respondent
2.3 Initial Report to RAC	RMO summarizes findings and submits to the Research Affairs Committee (RAC) for screening.	RMO → RAC

 

Stage 3. Screening by RAC

Step	Description	Responsible Units / Persons
3.1 Evaluate Case Type	RAC 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 Case	If 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 checks Witness interviews Full RAC deliberation meeting (Stage 4)	RAC

 

Stage 4. Full Deliberation

Step	Description	Responsible Units / Persons
4.1 RAC Deliberation	RAC discusses findings and evidence; formulates recommendation for disciplinary actions.	RAC
4.2 Recommendation Submitted	RAC submits recommendation to COEC for final decision by RAC Review & Recommendation Form	RAC → COEC

 

Stage 5. Final Decision & Notification

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

 

Stage 6. Appeal (If Applicable)

Step	Description	Responsible Units / Persons
6.1 Appeal Submission	The accused may submit a written appeal within defined timeframe.	Respondent
6.2 Appeal Review	RAC re-evaluates case if valid grounds presented.	RAC
6.3 Final Decision	COEC 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.