Reply
Sat 23 Apr, 2011 09:26 am
Context:
Harvard had been pummelled in the press for its reticence, but it is
common and sometimes necessary for universities to sit on the results
of internal misconduct investigations. This is particularly true when
the case is complex — as they often are — and the findings subject to
challenge, or when other researchers have been implicated. Indeed, the
US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which monitors investigations
of researchers who are funded by the National Institutes of Health, asks
institutions not to make their investigations public until the ORI has
completed its own assessment. This can delay a verdict for weeks or
even years after the university completes its own investigation.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:subject to challenge
A phrase with legal connotations. Most legal systems allow, in certain circumstances, for the decisions or findings of courts or other bodies to be challenged or appealed against. If the findings of a university misconduct investigation are subject to challenge this means that the rules and procedures of the university allow for the findings to be challenged. For example if a university investigation finds me guilty of misconduct and the rules allow it, I might, personally or using a lawyer, challenge the finding.
@oristarA,
Further, it may mean that the findings can be challenged, but it is not yet known whether they will be.