This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

W. Andrew Collins, PhD; Roberta M. Humphreys, PhD; Margaret B. Davis, PhD; Warren E. Ibele, PhD; Martin Dworkin, PhD; Jean Kinsey, PhD; Marcia Eaton, PhD; David T. Lykken, PhD; Margaret Hostetter, MD
University of Minnesota Minneapolis

Arch Surg. 1996;131(4):451.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

A recent article¹ has unfortunately misrepresented the process of academic misconduct hearings at the University of Minnesota. The article in question refers to the report of a faculty panel whose function was to adjudicate the charges brought internally by the University of Minnesota against Regents' Professor John Najarian, MD. When an allegation of academic misconduct is made, the senior vice president for Academic Affairs appoints a senior administrator from an academic unit other than that in which the allegations were made who determines whether the available evidence supports the need for a full investigation. If the senior administrator so concludes, the Scholarly and Scientific Advisory Board, a panel of nine faculty members nominated by the University's Regents' professors, then nominates an intramural investigative panel from among the accused's peers. This panel is responsible for determining whether there is substantive evidence to support charges of academic misconduct. In this capacity, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?