The University of Windsor has moved to an “essential service only” model. Learn More.
Up close image of a microscope in a lab

Research Policies

Policy Title: Research Overhead Costs Policy
Policy Number: Office of Research and Innovation Services – August 15, 2019 – ORIS Policy No. ORIS-11-005
Established: August 15, 2019 (update to May 1, 2013 version); Executive Director, Research and Innovation
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation


Policy Statement

This Policy outlines the overhead costs and charges in conducting non-Tri-Council-funded research and contract work.


Purpose

This policy is designed to outline what overhead costs are, how charging for them will proceed, and how overhead funding is to be allocated. 


Definition and Scope

All research incurs indirect costs by the University, whether supported by a grant or contract. This principle has been recognized by governments in recent years and, for example, there is now an annual Federal Indirect Costs Program (FICP) that returns some of the indirect costs to universities in conducting Tri-Council as well as National Centres of Excellence (NCE) research.

To avoid confusion with what is supported by FICP, indirect costs associated with research that is not funded by the Tri-Council and NCE are typically described as overhead costs.

Overhead costs must be included in the budgets for all research proposals, contracts, contract proposals, contract letters of intent, and contract development agreements. The only exceptions are the Tri-Council and NCE portion of funding (of which the indirect costs are separately funded by FICP) and the Early Researcher Awards (which has its own associated overhead costs policy); note that overhead charges are expected from the industrial contributions even in Tri-Council and NCE funding as these are not covered by FICP. The standard overhead charging rate is 40% of the total project cost minus any contributions from the Tri-Council or NCE (in any project involving cofunding between the Tri-Council/NCE and other partners). The Vice-President, Research may lower this rate for a specific application after appeal from the applicant. Note that this appeal must be based on an existing policy, or a regular practice, of the funding source; or an exceptional instance in which the funding bears no specified deliverables to the funder. All other reasoning will typically be considered unpersuasive.


Procedures

Contract Negotiation

Prior to submission to the Office of Research Services, all applications should be reviewed and signed by the Head of the Academic Unit and the Dean of the respective Faculty. Discussions early on should inform the research recipients (company, government department, etc.) that they are expected to bear overhead costs. Appeal to the Vice-President, Research must be raised in advance. Legally, no employee other than an officer of the Board (i.e. President, Vice-President, or their designate) can sign a contract in the name of the University. In this case the signature will normally be that of the Vice- President, Research or designate.

Allocation of Overhead Funding

Overhead funding received per contract or award is to be disbursed to those who incur the costs as follows: 

  • 25% to be returned to the Principal Investigator (PI)/Applicant to support her/his existing and/or future research (the PI may not draw a salary on this item);
  • 25% to be distributed to the PI’s Faculty Dean to partially offset costs associated with the project work and/or to support future research activities;
  • 10% to be distributed to the PI’s Departmental Chair, or the Dean additionally for a nondepartmentalized Faculty, to partially offset costs associated with the project work and/or to support future research activities;
  • 20% to be allocated to the Central Administration of the University to partially offset costs associated with the project work;
  • 20% to be allocated to the Office of Research and Innovation Services to enhance and further strengthen industrial liaison and technology transfer activities.

Review Process for Policy

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.


Process for Communicating Policy

The policy will be disseminated to the university research community.

Policy Title: Canada Research Chairs (CRC) Standard Budget Policy
Date Established: April 8, 2013
Office with Administrative Responsibility: Ofice of Research and Innovation Services
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation
Revision Date(s): August 15, 2019, June 15, 2015


Policy Statement

This policy outlines the standard budget policy to be applied to Canada Research Chair (CRC) funding received for approved CRC holders, new and renewed, whose term commences on or after May 1, 2013.


Purpose

This policy sets out the standard pan-University budget policy for all CRC holders, new and renewed, whose term commences on or after May 1, 2013.


Scope

This policy applies to all Canada Research Chairs funding received by the University of Windsor for Chairholders whose term commences on or after May 1, 2013.


Exceptions to Policy

Not applicable.


Procedures

  Tier 1  Tier 2
CRC Value $200,000 $100,000
40% to Dean for salary and course release(s) (N.B. up to two courses releases for Tier 1 and one course release for Tier 2) Course releases cannot result in fewer than two semester courses being taught in the teaching year $80,000 $40,000
20% for institutional administration and research support $40,000 $20,000
10% increase of the Chair’s salary as a stipend (N.B. estimate only; if the amount deducted is more or less, the balance for the Chairholder’s research program will be adjusted accordingly) ~$20,000 ~$10,000
Approximate amount remaining for Chair’s research program ~$60,000 ~$30,000

Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.

Policy Title: Closure of Internal Research Grant Accounts of Former Employees
Date Established: May 1, 2013
Office with Administrative Responsibility: Ofice of Research and Innovation Services
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation
Revision Date(s): August 15, 2019


Policy Statement

This policy states the University of Windsor’s position on limiting the lifetime of internal research grants upon the end of an employee’s active employment with the University of Windsor.


Purpose

Internal research grants are often provided by the University of Windsor to its employees, including faculty and administrators, to financially assist them in performing and/or continuing their research endeavours during their employment at the University of Windsor. Many of these accounts, however, contain unspent amounts even many years after cessation of the employees’ employment with the University of Windsor, e.g., after retirement.

In a time of significant budget challenges, it is important that the University uses the resources it has available for research as effectively and productively as possible. To that end, the University cannot continue to encumber precious University financial resources long after termination of the employees’ employment.

For the above reasons, the University will close all internal research grant accounts three years after grant holders cease to be employees of the University of Windsor, i.e., upon retirement. All remaining unspent funds will be transferred to the Strategic Priority Fund for Research to support faculty and staff in their research activities.


Scope

This policy is applicable to all University of Windsor internal research grants. Grants issued by external agencies are not applicable to this policy.

For existing internal research grants of which the holders are already retirees, their grant accounts will close on April 30, 2016.


Exceptions to Policy

If the grant holders resign and no longer have status at the University of Windsor, their internal grants will be closed immediately.


Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.

Policy Title: Closure of Research Leadership Chair Internally Funded Accounts
Date Established: January 14, 2014
Office with Administrative Responsibility: Ofice of Research and Innovation Services
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation
Revision Date(s): August 15, 2019


Policy Statement

This policy outlines the procedure for closing Research Leadership Chair (RLC) Chairholders’ internally funded accounts specifically related to the RLC after expiration of the Chair position.


Purpose

This policy sets out the standard procedure for closing RLC internally funded accounts after expiration of the Chair position


Scope

This policy applies to all University of Windsor internally funded accounts specific to the RLC appointment.


Exceptions to Policy

The only exception is for RLC who had an arrangement that pre-dated this policy with the Provost’s Office.


Procedures

Effective January 1, 2014, the following procedure for RLC Chairholders’ internally funded accounts shall apply to RLC positions that have already ended or are due to end:

  • RLC Chairholders shall be allowed no more than six months (the “time period”) from the end date of their RLC to allow for the payment of outstanding commitments from their internally funded account. This time period is limited to the payment of outstanding commitments that were incurred prior to the end of the Chair. No new commitments or expenditures may be authorized from the internal account for any activity taking place after the end date of the Chair.
  • Chairholders that have their RLC ended prior to the effective date of this policy but have remaining funds in their internal account shall be allowed no more than six months (the “time period”) from the effective date of this policy (January 1, 2014) to pay any outstanding commitments made prior to January 1, 2014. No new commitments or expenditures may be authorized from the internal account for any activity after this date.
  • At the end of the time period referred to in 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 above, any remaining funds shall be returned to the University’s Strategic Priority Fund for Research to support future research activities. Each former RLC’s Faculty shall have first priority to draw upon its returned funds for research that supports the University’s Strategic Research Plan.

Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.

Policy Title: Establishment of Research Grant or Contract Account Policy
Date Established: November 21, 2013
Office with Administrative Responsibility: Ofice of Research and Innovation Services
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation
Revision Date(s): August 15, 2019, May 7, 2014


Policy Statement

This policy outlines the requirements for establishment of a grant or contract account in the name of a Principal Investigator or Co‐Investigator with respect to funding from either an external or internal source. A Principal Investigator or Co‐investigator refers to a full‐time University of Windsor faculty member, librarian, or ancillary academic staff who holds a tenured/continuing appointment, tenure‐track/continuing appointment, or limited term appointment, or has adjunct status with a faculty or school on campus.


Purpose

The policy is designed for the orderly processing of the required documentation in order to establish a grant or contract account on behalf of Principal Investigators or Co‐Investigators at the University of Windsor. The main purpose is to ensure integrity, efficiency, and expediency in the establishment of grant or contract accounts and to ensure compliance with UWindsor and/or sponsor regulations and guidelines.


Scope

This policy applies to all grant or contract accounts to be established on behalf of a Principal Investigator, whether from an external or internal funding source. This policy also applies in cases where a Co‐Investigator at UWindsor is a party to a grant or contract held by a Principal Investigator from another institution.


Exception to Policy

Not applicable.


Procedures

All requests for establishment of a grant or contract account submitted to the Office of Research and Innovation Services (ORIS) must be accompanied by the appropriate ORIS Funding Application Information Sheet and Checklist form (hereinafter referred to as “ORIS Funding Application Form”). The link to the form found on the Office of Research and Innovation Services website is: http://www1.uwindsor.ca/oris/ors‐internal‐forms. This form must be completed, signed by the Applicant, the Head (if applicable), and the Dean.

  • For grants from an external agency, the completed ORIS Funding Application Form must be accompanied by a copy of the grant application and the award letter. For contracts, the completed ORIS Funding Application Form must be accompanied by a copy the contract and a copy of the letter/email confirming the acceptance of the contract, if applicable.
  • For internally funded grants, the completed ORIS Funding Application Form must be accompanied by a copy of the application form and the award letter. If no formal application is required, the applicant must provide, at minimum, a description of the research project, the budget for the project with a start date and end date, and a letter/email from the funding source confirming the award.

Upon receipt of the documentation required for any of the above described circumstances, ORIS will provide to Research Finance the necessary form and documentation in order that the grant or contract account may be established in the name of the Principal Investigator or Co‐Investigator, as the case may be.


Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.

Policy Title: Research Integrity and Responsibility Conduct of Research Policy
Date Established: May 15, 2013
Office with Administrative Responsibility: Ofice of Research and Innovation Services
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation
Revision Date(s): August 15, 2019, March 28, 2019


Policy Statement

This policy aims to provide an environment that supports the best research practices and that fosters UWindsor researchers to act honestly, accountably, openly and fairly in the search for and dissemination of knowledge. The University community has always recognized the necessity for and importance of maintaining the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research activities and all faculty, staff and students are expected to uphold these standards. All faculty, staff and students are personally and directly responsible for the intellectual and ethical quality of their work.


Purpose

This purposes of this policy are: (1) to meet the requirements set out in the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research; (2) to outline the responsibilities and standards required of UWindsor faculty, staff and students engaged in research; and (3) to provide a process for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research. [To best conform with the requirements set out in the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research document, sections of this policy are reproduced from this document to minimize potential ambiguity.]


Scope

This policy applies to all UWindsor faculty, staff and students who engage in research. “Agency” referred to in this policy shall mean NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR or any other funding organization providing funding for research.


Exception to Policy

Not applicable.


Responsibilities of Researchers

Faculty members, staff and students are responsible for:

  • Promoting research integrity through following the best research practices honestly, accountably, openly and fairly in the search for and in dissemination of knowledge;
  • Following applicable institutional policies and professional or disciplinary standards and shall comply with applicable laws and regulations in the conduct of research including, but not limited to: (1) 2nd edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research Policy Page 2 of 7 Humans (TCPS2), (2) Canadian Council on Animal Care Policies and Guidelines, (3) Agency policies related to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; (4) Licenses for research in the field; (5) Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines; (6) Controlled Goods Program; (7) Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Regulations; and Canada’s Food and Drugs Act;
  • Using a high level of rigour in proposing and performing research, in recording, analyzing and interpreting data, and in reporting and publishing data and findings;
  • Keeping complete and accurate records of data, methodologies and findings, including graphs and images, in accordance with the applicable funding agreement, University policies, and/or laws, regulations, and professional or disciplinary standards in a manner that will allow verification or replication of the work by others;
  • Referencing and, where applicable, obtaining permission for the use of all published and unpublished work, including data, source material, methodologies, findings, graphs and images;
  • Including as authors, with their consent, all those and only those who have materially or conceptually contributed to and share responsibility for the contents of the publication or document in a manner consistent with their respective contributions and authorship policies of relevant publications;
  • Acknowledging, in addition to authors, all contributors and contributions to research, including writers, funders and sponsors;
  • Ensuring that all inventors listed on a patent application have made an inventive contribution to the invention, and all inventive contributors are listed;
  • Appropriately disclosing and managing any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the University’s policy on conflict of interest in research, in order to ensure that the objectives of the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research are met.
  • Ensuring that others listed on applications for funding have agreed to be included, providing, true, complete and accurate information in their funding applications and related documents (such as letters of support or progress reports), and representing themselves, their research and their accomplishments in a manner consistent with the norms of the relevant field;
  • Certifying, as applicants on grant applications that they are not currently ineligible to apply for, and/or hold, funds from NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR or any other research or research funding organization world-wide for reasons of breach of responsible conduct of research policies such as ethics, integrity or financial management policies;
  • Using grant or award funds in accordance with the policies of the funding agency, including the Tri-Agency Financial Administration Guide and Agency grants and awards guides; and for providing true, complete and accurate information on documentation for expenditures from grant or award accounts;
  • Obtaining any necessary approvals, permits or certifications before conducting certain types of research, such as research involving humans or animals; and
  • Being proactive in rectifying any breach of Agency policies, for example, by correcting their research record, providing a letter of apology to those impacted by the breach, or repaying funds.

Misconduct in Research

Misconduct in research means conduct that breaches standards and practices that are generally accepted within the relevant field of research. This may include a failure to meet any of the expectations set out in section 5 of this Policy and also includes the following:

  • Breaches of Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy, including but not limited to:
    • Fabrication and/or falsification of data, source material, methodologies, or findings;
    • The destruction of one’s own or another’s research data or records to specifically avoid detection of wrongdoing or in contravention of the applicable funding agreement, institutional policy and/or laws, regulations and professional or disciplinary standards;
    • Plagiarism and redundant publication, including the re-publication of one’s own previously published work or part thereof, or data, in the same or another language, without adequate acknowledgment of the source, or justification;
    • Invalid authorship: inaccurate attribution, including attribution to persons other than those who made a material intellectual contribution to an invention or to the contents of a publication or research project, or agreeing to be listed as an inventor on a patent application or as an author or contributor to a publication or research project to which one made no material intellectual contribution;
    • Failure to appropriately recognize or acknowledge the contributions of others in a manner consistent with their respective contributions and, if applicable, consistent with the authorship policies of relevant publications; and
    • Failure to appropriately manage any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the University’s policy on conflict of interest in research, preventing one or more of the objectives of the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research from being met.
  • Misrepresentation in an Agency application or related document, including but not limited to:
    • Providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information in a grant or award application or related document such as a letter of support or a progress report;
    • Applying for and/or holding an Agency award when deemed ineligible by NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR, or any other research or research funding organization world-wide for reasons of breach of responsible conduct of research policies such as ethics, integrity or financial management policies; and
    • Listing of co-applicants, collaborators or partner(s) without their agreement.
  • • Using grant or award funds for purposes inconsistent with the policies of the Agencies; misappropriating grants and award funds; contravening Agency financial policies, namely the TriAgency Financial Administration Guide, Agency grants and awards guides; or providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information on documentation for expenditures from grant or award accounts.
  • Failing to meet Agency policy requirements or, to comply with relevant policies, laws or regulations, for the conduct of certain types of research activities; failing to obtain appropriate approvals, permits or certifications before conducting these activities.

Procedures

The University will exercise its authority and discretion under these Procedures in conformity with the principles of procedural fairness in the university context. The University respects the sensitive nature of an allegation or the information that individuals may provide under these Procedures. Such information will only be disclosed in accordance with these Procedures or as otherwise authorized by law. All records are maintained by the University in accordance with the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other applicable laws and orders of the Courts, and other bodies having jurisdiction over such matters.

Receiving Allegations

All matters relating to misconduct in research, including confidential enquiries, allegations of misconduct in research, and information related to allegations, are to be sent to the VicePresident, Research and Innovation (VPRI) and to the Associate Vice-President Academic (AVPA). If either of the VPRI or the AVPA is a named party to the allegation, the other party not named will assume all of the responsibilities under these procedures. If the VPRI and the AVPA determine that it would be inappropriate to address a particular allegation for whatever reason, or if both the VPRI and the AVPA are a named party to the allegation, the allegation may be referred to the President who will then assume all of the responsibilities of the VPRI under these procedures.

An allegation of misconduct in research may come from various sources inside or outside the University. For example, the allegation may come from a researcher, a granting source, a member of the general public, a media report, or an anonymous source.

The ability of the University to investigate an allegation may be affected if it is from an anonymous source, or if an allegation is not made in writing, and in some cases the University may be unable to proceed.

The VPRI will advise the President immediately if any allegations are received that are related to activities funded by a Tri-Council Agency that may involve significant financial, health and safety, or other risks. The President will then immediately notify the relevant Tri-Council Agency or the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (Secretariat) of such allegation. The notification will include the name of the researcher alleged to have committed the misconduct in research and the nature of the allegation.

At any time, the President may take such action as the President deems appropriate in order to protect the administration of University and outside funds, ensure that evidence is preserved, or prevent further possible misconduct or damage while the process outlined under the Procedure is carried out, including closing research facilities that are the subject matter of the allegation, freezing grant accounts or requiring a second authorized signature from a University representative on all expenses charged to the respondent’s grant account(s), and/or obtaining and securing relevant documentation (such as lab notes, electronically stored information or electronic storage devices, and proof of credentials).

Inquiry

Upon receipt of an allegation, the VPRI will conduct an inquiry to establish whether an allegation is responsible and whether an investigation is warranted. The VPRI will consult with the Dean of the relevant Faculty within five (5) working days in this regard. A responsible allegation is one that is made in good faith, is based on matters which have not been the subject of a previous allegation, and falls within the jurisdiction of this Policy.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the VPRI may dismiss the allegation, or some aspect of the allegation, or may appoint an Investigative Committee to investigate the allegation, or may take such other action as the VPRI deems appropriate, including referring the matter to another appropriate University office.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the VPRI will inform the respondent in the allegation, the President and the President of the respective Bargaining Unit in writing as to whether or not the University is proceeding with an investigation of the allegation. The VPRI will also normally inform the party who made the allegation.

If the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research was advised of an allegation under section 8.4 above, the VPRI will also advise the Secretariat as to whether or not the University is proceeding with an investigation of the allegation within two (2) months of receipt of the allegation by the VPRI.

The inquiry process will normally be completed within ten (10) working days of receipt of the allegation by the VPRI.

In all cases of allegations, the respondent will be informed by the Dean within five (5) working days of the allegation being made against him/her, and will be given an opportunity to reply. The respondent will be notified that she/he has the right to be represented by the Faculty Association or other relevant bargaining unit and that she/he should contact their respective bargaining unit before responding to the allegation. For faculty members, the rights of the respondent in this Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research Policy Page 5 of 7 regard are as more particularly set out in sections 60:10 (a) and (b) of the University of Windsor Faculty Association Collective Agreement.

Investigating Allegations

If the VPRI has determined that an investigation is warranted, she/he will, in consultation with the Dean of the relevant Faculty, strike an Investigative Committee consisting of the Dean (Chair) and two other individuals, at least one of whom will be external with no current affiliation with the University. The members of the Investigative Committee must be without conflict of interest, whether real or apparent, and must include members who have the necessary expertise.

The mandate of the Investigative Committee is to investigate the allegation and determine on a balance of probabilities whether the misconduct in research has occurred and if so, its extent and severity, and the degree of intent on the part of the respondent. The determination is made by majority vote.

The Investigative Committee may investigate the allegation using any means it deems appropriate in the circumstances, subject to the principles of procedural fairness in the university context. Such means may include the following:

  • Requesting written submissions from the respondent and any other parties with information that might be relevant to the allegations, including the party who made the allegation;
  • Interviewing the respondent and any other parties with information that might be relevant to the allegations, including the party who made the allegation;
  • Obtaining documents relevant to the allegation; o Requesting audits of any relevant sponsored research accounts; and
  • Consulting with other University offices or seeking impartial expert opinions and advice.

At the outset of each investigation, the Investigative Committee will inform the respondent of the process and timelines it intends to follow.

All faculty, staff and students must cooperate fully with the Investigative Committee and make available any documents requested by the Investigative Committee.

The investigation will normally be completed within fifty (50) working days of the receipt of an allegation by the respondent.

Report of the Investigative Commitee

Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Committee will prepare a written report which includes the following information:

  • The allegation;
  • A list of the parties who provided information and a summary of the information they provided; o A summary of the relevant documents and other material reviewed;
  • Findings of fact based on the information gathered during the investigation;
  • A determination as to whether misconduct in research occurred;
  • If misconduct in research is found to have occurred, a determination as to its extent and severity, and the degree of intent on the part of the respondent; and
  • Recommendations on any remedial action to be taken and/or changes to University procedures or practices to avoid similar situations in the future
  • Withdrawing any relevant articles, papers or other documents that have been submitted for publication but not yet published;
  • Notifying publications in which any relevant research was published or reported;
  • Notifying relevant external funding organizations;
  • Ensuring that the units involved are informed of appropriate practices for promoting integrity in research; and
  • Any other appropriate action to be taken, other than discipline.

The Investigative Committee will normally deliver its report to the VPRI, the President, the President of the Faculty Association or other relevant bargaining unit and to the respondent within sixty (60) working days of the receipt of an allegation.

Upon receipt of the report from the Investigative Committee, the VPRI will normally send a copy of the report to the party who made the allegation.

Recourse and Accountability

If the Investigative Committee determines that misconduct in research has not occurred, the President will make a final decision on whether any remedial action is necessary, and will communicate that decision in writing along with a copy of the report to the VPRI, the respondent, the President of the respective union, and when appropriate to the individual who made the allegation. In such instances, reasonable efforts will be made by the President to protect or restore the reputation of the respondent as appropriate.

If the Investigative Committee determines that misconduct in research has occurred, the President will forward the Investigative Committee’s report to the respondent, the respondent’s Dean and the President of the respective bargaining unit. Taking into account the severity of the breach, the President will normally consult with the VPRI and then make a final decision as to what discipline or other action is appropriate and will send a copy of the report and communicate that decision in writing to the respondent, the VPRI and the President of the respective bargaining unit.

All final decisions under section 12.2 above will normally be made and communicated within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the Investigative Committee’s report.

If the Investigative Committee determines that misconduct in research has occurred, the President may report the misconduct in research to other parties as deemed appropriate, including relevant external funding organizations, publication in which the relevant research was reported or to which it was submitted, or to those persons affected by the misconduct in research.

The VPRI will prepare a report for the Secretariat on the Responsible Conduct of Research on each investigation it conducts in response to an allegation of misconduct in research related to a funding application submitted to a Tri-Council Agency or to an activity funded by a Tri-Council Agency. The report will include the information required by the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, as set out under the reporting requirements in the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. The report shall be forwarded to the Secretariat within seven (7) months of the receipt of the allegation.

The VPRI will publish anonymized, statistical annual reports on confirmed findings of breaches of this Policy and any actions taken.

The University and the faculty member, staff or student may not enter into confidentiality agreements or other agreements related to an inquiry or investigation that prevent the University from reporting to the Agencies through the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.

Appeal

Faculty members, staff or student(s) may appeal any discipline that is imposed under this Procedure through the grievance and arbitration procedures of their collective agreement or their terms and conditions of employment, if applicable.


Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.

Policy Title: Submission of Proposal Documents by Principal Investigators
Date Established: September 8, 2010
Office with Administrative Responsibility: Ofice of Research and Innovation Services
Approved by: Vice-President, Research and Innovation
Revision Date(s): August 15, 2019, July 26, 2011, October 14, 2010


Policy Statement

This policy outlines the requirements for submission of proposals, grants, agreements, and contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as “proposal documents”) by Principal Investigators (PI) to the Office of Research and Innovation Services (ORIS).


Purpose

This policy is designed for the orderly vetting and processing of proposal documents on behalf of Principal Investigators at the University of Windsor. The main purpose is to ensure integrity, efficiency, and expediency in the processing of the proposal documents.


Scope

This policy applies to all proposal documents submitted by Principal Investigators to ORIS. This policy also applies in cases where co-Investigators at Windsor are parties to proposal documents being submitted by Principal Investigators from other institutions.


Exceptions to Policy

Not applicable.


Procedures

Proposal Documents Submission Procedures

All proposal documents (draft Research Grant/Contract Application) are submitted to ORIS for approval and must be accompanied by the ORIS Funding application Information Sheet and Checklist (hereinafter referred to as “ORIS Checklist Form”) The link to the forms found on the Office of Research Services website is: https://www.uwindsor.ca/research-innovationservices/sites/uwindsor.ca.re...

At minimum, the Principal Investigator’s Department Head and Faculty Dean/Associate Dean of Research must review and acknowledge any associated University commitments by signing the ORIS Checklist Form. Any cash or in- kind contributions must be documented in writing by the contributing party and submitted to ORIS with the proposal document

Signatures are to be obtained on both the proposal documents (as required) and on the ORIS Checklist Form. The following steps are then taken:

  • Completed proposal documents signed by the Principal Investigator (or co- Investigator), are first submitted to the Academic Administrative Unit (AAU) Head.
  • Following departmental authorization, the Principal Investigator is responsible for obtaining authorization by the Dean or Associate Dean of Research for the Faculty.
  • One copy of the proposal document with the ORIS Checklist Form is submitted to ORIS, which will issue or obtain University authorization according to the nature and scope of the proposal document. Legal institutional signatories can only be obtained through ORIS. The Principal Investigator, his or her Dean or Department Head are not permitted to enter into grant or contract agreements without an institutional signature.
  • For e-submissions, the online submission by ORIS will take place after receipt and review of a hard copy of the proposal document and the completed and signed ORIS Checklist Form. Principal Investigators are responsible for producing their own copy of the proposal document for their records. Where electronic approval by ORIS is not required (i.e. when the Principal Investigator submits directly to the agency/sponsor), Principal Investigators are required to obtain the above internal approvals before clicking “submit”.

Unless otherwise stated, the proposal document and ORIS Checklist Form are to be submitted to ORIS five (5) business days prior to the agency/sponsor deadline. Internal deadlines for large competitions will be provided well in advance of the competition deadline. When internal deadlines are respected, ORIS will conduct an administrative review of the proposal document before obtaining institutional approval and signature. ORIS will review the proposal document to ensure that it complies with the funding sponsor’s posted guidelines, and that the Department and Faculty signatures have been obtained. However, please note that ultimate responsibility for meeting the funding agency proposal document regulations and guidelines rests with the Principal Investigator.

Unless specifically requested by the funding agency/sponsor, Principal Investigators are not required to obtain necessary certifications (e.g. Animal Care, Biohazard, Radiation, Research Ethics, Controlled Goods) for a proposal document until the proposal document is awarded. Any research activity involving the use of vertebrate animals, biohazards, radioisotopes, humans, or controlled goods must be approved by the appropriate certification committee prior to commencing such work as research funds will not be released to the Principal Investigator (i.e. funds will be placed “on hold”) by Research Accounting until such certifications are obtained.

Meaning of Signatures

Principal Investigator: indicates acceptance of academic, professional, scientific, technical responsibility and financial administration of the project. In addition, it represents an undertaking to observe agency/sponsor and University policies and regulations, as well as any special award conditions.

Academic administrative Unit (AAU) Head: indicates that the department is willing to accommodate the project; that required facilities and services are available; that the Principal Investigator meets known University and agency/sponsor eligibility requirements; and that the budget is appropriate and realistic. It also represents general acceptance of expressed or implied time commitments, including willingness to recommend leave or other special arrangements as specified in the application.

Dean or Director: indicates their knowledge of this research and acknowledge overall responsibility for the provision of all resources other than those covered by the award that are necessary for the project’s execution. They further certify that space and any alteration costs Submission of Proposal Documents by Principal Investigators Page 3 of 3 thereto are available from Faculty resources and that if this is not the case, they will obtain prior approval from the Provost and Vice-President, Academic (such approval to be attached).

Vice-President, Research and Innovation and Innovation and/or Executive Director, Research and Innovation: confirms that the institution will accept and administer funds in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions or will negotiate acceptable terms if these are not established at the time of application; and that, when applicable, the project has been, or will be, reviewed for human ethics, animal experimentation, radiation, biosafety hazards, or controlled goods. In cases where the PI is the Head of the Department, the “Head” signature shall be left blank as the Dean’s signature represents signing authority covering the Head and the Dean, and in cases where the PI is the Dean, the “Dean” signature section shall be completed by the Associate VicePresident, Academic who has signing authority over the Dean.

Authorization

Proposal documents for grants/proposals or contract research that are related to a faculty member’s commitment to research and which utilize University facilities/services, must be authorized by the University. An institutional signature indicates the University’s willingness to administer the research funds on the Principal Investigator’s behalf, consistent with the University’s policies. In particular, the institutional signature of the Vice-President, Research and Innovation or Executive Director, Research and Innovation indicates that:

  • The Principal Investigator (or co-Investigator) is a member at the University (consistent with agency requirements with respect to rank) who is undertaking independent research and who has time space, and basic facilities available.
  • The research is consistent with University and agency/sponsor policies including those associated with animal care, radioisotopes, controlled goods, biosafety, and research ethics approval with respect to human subjects.
  • Administration of, and accounting for, funds received by the University on behalf of the Principal Investigator will meet the sponsor’s terms and conditions.

Submission of Proposal Documents to Agency/Sponsor

The responsibility for submission of hard copies of proposal documents to the agency/sponsor rests with the Principal Investigator, with the exception of institutional proposal documents (e.g. CFI, CRC, ERAs), which will be submitted by ORIS.


Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required.