Procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct in research

1. Purpose

1.1 The University is committed to ensuring that highest standards of integrity and honesty are maintained in all aspects of its activities, including research. This procedure identifies how allegations of misconduct in research are reported and investigated. The University recognises the importance of researchers taking responsibility for their own research, including topic and methodology, and the ethical and legal requirements placed on both researchers and the University itself.

1.2 Any misconduct in research is unacceptable and all allegations should be reported to the University Secretary. Allegations will be investigated thoroughly, fairly and in a timely manner, in accordance with this Code of Practice. All proceedings will be conducted under the presumption of innocence and carried out with sensitivity and confidentiality. Anyone wishing to raise concerns relating to misconduct in research should do so in accordance with this Code and where raised in good faith, will be supported and not penalised.

1.3 The procedure draws on the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research.

2. Scope

2.1 This procedure applies to all employees, all honorary or visiting staff engaged in research and to postgraduate students involved in research outside their research degree. This procedure only applies to misconduct in research.

2.2 Research Misconduct which could be investigated under this Code of Practice, may include, but not be limited to:

• Fabrication;
• Falsification;
• Misinterpretation of data and/or interests and or involvement;
• Plagiarism and inappropriate allocation of authorship; and
• Failures to follow accepted procedures or to exercise due care in carrying out responsibilities for:
  • Avoiding unreasonable harm or risk to humans, animals used in research, and the environment; and
  • The proper handling of privileged or private information on individuals collected during the research.

2.3 Research misconduct includes acts of omission as well as acts of commission. The basis for reaching a conclusion that an individual is responsible for research misconduct relies on a judgement that there was an intention to commit the misconduct and/or recklessness in the conduct in any aspect of a research project. Where allegations concern unintentional and/or reckless departure from accepted procedures in the conduct of research that may not fall directly within the terms detailed above, a judgement should be made as to whether the matter should be investigated under this Code of Practice.

3. Links with other policies

3.1 The University Code of Research Ethics and the Research Integrity Code of Practice are essential to upholding good practice in research involving human participants.

3.2 This procedure is designed to determine whether action is required according to the University’s disciplinary processes or other non-disciplinary processes.

3.3 See also the Public Interest Disclosure Policy (Whistleblowing) which may be appropriate for reporting serious cases of research misconduct.

4. Reporting of misconduct

4.1 Allegations of misconduct in research should be referred to the University Secretary. Procedural and administrative support will be provided by Human Resources.

4.2 The complainant(s) will be encouraged to make the complaint in writing and to put their name to the complaint. Whilst the University will make every effort to protect the identity of any individual making a complaint, it must be recognised that the investigation process may reveal them as the source. Where formal disciplinary action results from an investigation it may not be possible to keep the identity of the complainant confidential.

4.3 Anonymous complaints will normally be investigated but it must be recognised that being unable to clarify the identity of the complainant(s) may hinder any investigation.

4.4 On receipt of the complaint the University Secretary will acknowledge the complaint and advise the complainant of the procedures which will be followed.

5. Review of complaints

5.1 The University Secretary in liaison with the PVC (Academic) will review whether the nature of the allegations mean that it is necessary to notify legal or regulatory authorities or whether the alleged behaviour might be a breach of the disciplinary rules. In the case of the former, as a consequence of notification, the University may be required to comply with an investigation led by an external body and this will normally take precedence over this procedure. In the case of an alleged breach of the disciplinary rules, the University Secretary will decide whether to continue this procedure in parallel with the disciplinary procedures or to suspend the procedure pending conclusion of disciplinary procedures.

5.2 If the respondent is engaged by the University on an honorary basis or where the University is not the main employer, the University Secretary will inform the appropriate contact of the respondent’s primary employer and inform them of the allegations.

5.3 The University Secretary will assess whether the research project has any contractual obligations that require the University to take any prescribed steps in the event of allegations of misconduct in research, including notification requirements to sponsors and funding organisations where relevant.

5.4 The respondent will be invited to a meeting with the PVC (Academic), where s/he will be formally notified of the allegations of misconduct. The procedure will be explained and a general timeframe will be presented. The respondent is entitled to be accompanied by their trade union representative or friend. A member of Human Resources staff will be present to provide procedural advice and keep a record of the meeting. A written record will be sent to the respondent.

5.5 In certain cases, the University Secretary in conjunction with the Head of HR, may consider it appropriate to direct the suspension of the respondent or place other temporary restrictions on duties or contacts as appropriate, pending an investigation into the complaint. Such action will only take place where there is a clear risk to individuals or where evidence might be destroyed. Suspension or other restrictions are precautionary measures – as a neutral act, such action does not imply any indication of blame in accordance with the Staff Disciplinary Procedure.

6. Initial screening

6.1 The University Secretary will ensure all relevant records, materials and locations associated with the research which are likely to be essential in order to carry out a full and fair investigation are secured.

6.2 Within 10 working days an initial investigation undertaken by the PVC (Academic) or nominee will be carried out to determine whether the complaint is mistaken, frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious and the conclusions will be confirmed in writing to the respondent and the complainant.

6.3 If the University Secretary/PVC (Academic) determines there are no grounds for further action the allegations will be dismissed and this will be confirmed in writing to the respondent and the complainant and any other parties who had been informed. Where appropriate the PVC (Academic) should take necessary steps to support the reputation of the individual and the research project and where the case has received publicity will consider whether an official statement should be released for internal and/or external audiences. Those who have made allegations in good faith will not be penalised in any way and the PVC (Academic) will consider what, if any, support the individual may require. If the PVC (Academic) concludes that the allegation is frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious and the complainant is an employee of the University this may result in disciplinary action.

6.4 If the allegations cannot be dismissed at this point the PVC (Academic) will consider whether to refer the matter to a screening panel. However, where there is clear evidence of misconduct that are straightforward, this will be considered directly under Staff Disciplinary Procedures.

7. Screening panel

7.1 The PVC (Academic) will appoint the Screening Panel of at least three members calling upon senior academic staff within the University and where appropriate from outside the University. In selecting the screening panel, the PVC (Academic) will consider the subject matter of the allegations including the need for specialist knowledge or investigative skill, and any potential conflicts of interest or connections to the respondent, complainant or subject matter of the allegations. Procedural and administrative support will be provided by Human Resources.

7.2 Where referred to a Screening Panel, the respondent, complainant and any other individuals interviewed by the Panel have a right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or friend.

7.3 The PVC (Academic) will inform the respondent and complainant of the names of the Screening Panel members so that they may raise any concerns regarding membership. The PVC (Academic) will consider any representations made but neither has a right of veto over membership.

7.4 The Screening Panel will aim to complete its investigations and report within 30 working days. The Screening Panel will interview both the respondent and the complainant and any other individuals, including expert witnesses, it determines appropriate. The Screening Panel will also consider documentary or other evidence relevant to the investigation.

7.5 The Screening Panel will review all evidence and determine:

• a. Whether the allegations should be referred under the disciplinary procedures; or
• b. Whether the allegations are sufficiently serious to justify a formal investigation; or
• c. Whether the allegations have some substance but due to a lack of intent to deceive or due to the minor nature of the allegations are better addressed through education and training; or
• d. Whether the allegations are mistaken, frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious.

7.6 The PVC (Academic) will forward the Screening Panel’s report to the respondent and complainant to comment on the factual accuracy of the report. Where there are errors of fact the Chair of the Screening Panel may amend the report subject to the agreement of the Screening Panel.

7.7 A copy of the final report will be sent to the respondent and the complainant.

7.8 Members of the Screening Panel will have no further role in the procedure unless clarity of the written report is required as part of a subsequent part of the investigation or unless required to comment by law. Where subsequent disciplinary procedures are followed, the Chair of the Screening Panel will be called as a witness at any disciplinary hearing if clarity regarding the Panel’s written report is required.

7.9 Where the Screening Panel recommends that a formal investigation should take place, the PVC (Academic) will notify the Vice Chancellor and the named person of any partner organisation, where relevant and establish a Formal Investigation Panel.

7.10 Where the Screening Panel determines there are no grounds for further action, the allegations will be dismissed and this will be confirmed in writing to the respondent and the complainant and any other parties who had been informed. Where appropriate the PVC (Academic) should take necessary steps to support the reputation of the individual and the research project and where the case has received publicity will consider whether an official statement should be released for internal and/or external audiences. Those who have made allegations in good faith will not be penalised in any way and the PVC (Academic) will consider what, if any, support the individual may require. If the PVC (Academic) concludes that the allegation is frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious and the complainant is an employee of the University this may result in disciplinary action.

8. Formal investigation

8.1 Within 30 working days of receipt of the final report of the Screening Panel the PVC (Academic) will establish a Formal Investigation Panel.

8.2 The PVC (Academic) will appoint the Formal Investigation Panel of at least three members, one of which must be external to the University. At least two members of the Panel should have experience in the area of research in which the alleged misconduct has taken place, although they should not be members of the Department concerned. Where allegations concern highly specialised areas of research there should be at least one member of the Panel with specialised knowledge of the field. In selecting the Formal Investigation Panel, the PVC (Academic) will take into account the subject matter of the allegations including the need for specialist knowledge or investigative skill, and consider any potential conflicts of interest or connections to the respondent, complainant or subject matter of the allegations. Procedural and administrative support will be provided by Human Resources. Membership of the Panel should be approved by the Vice Chancellor, including the Chair, and any changes to the recommendations made by the PVC (Academic) formally recorded and communicated to relevant parties.

8.3 The Investigation Panel should:

• receive all relevant information from the Initial Enquiry Panel as background to the investigation;
• set a date for the investigation, which should be conducted as quickly as possible;
• maintain a record of evidence sought and received, and conclusions reached;
• conduct a thorough assessment of the evidence;
• hear the Complainant and such other individuals as the Panel consider relevant to the investigation;
• hold a formal hearing to hear the Respondent’s response to the allegations made;
• consider the allegations of research misconduct and reach a conclusion on the allegations with the standard of proof used to reach the decision being “on the balance of probabilities”;
• provide a draft report to the PVC (Academic).

8.4 The Investigation Panel may call expert witnesses to give advice, if necessary and as
appropriate, and may seek guidance form UKRIO and its Advisers.

9. Determination of the Investigation

9.1 The Formal Investigation Panel should determine whether the allegation of research
misconduct is:

• upheld in full;
• upheld in part; or
• not upheld.

The standard of proof used by the Panel is that of “on the balance of probabilities”. The Panel
may conclude that the allegations are not upheld for reasons of being mistaken, frivolous,
vexatious and/or malicious.

9.2 The report should make recommendations in relation to any issues of misconduct identified,
including whether the allegations should be referred under the disciplinary procedures:

• Whether any action will be required to correct the record of research;
• Address any procedural matters that have been brought to light within the University
• and with partner organisations and/or funding bodies;
• Determine whether other matters should be investigated, including further allegations of misconduct by the respondent and/or other persons.

9.3 Where a unanimous decision is not possible a majority decision will be recorded and areas of
difference and dissent will be recorded in the final report.

9.4 Should any evidence of misconduct be brought to light during the course of the Formal
Investigation that suggests:

• further, distinct instances of research misconduct by the Respondent, unconnected with the allegation under investigation; or
• research misconduct by another person(s),

The Investigation Panel should submit these new allegations of research misconduct to the PVC (Academic) in writing, along with all supporting evidence, for consideration under the
initial stages of this Code of Practice.

9.5 The PVC (Academic) will forward the Formal Investigation Panel’s report to the respondent
and complainant to comment on the factual accuracy of the report. Where there are errors of
fact the Chair of the Panel may amend the report subject to the agreement of the
Formal Investigation Panel.

9.6 Members of the Panel will have no further role in the procedure unless clarity of the written report is required as part of a subsequent part of the investigation or unless required to comment by law. However, where subsequent disciplinary procedures are followed, the Chair of the Formal Investigation Panel will be called as a witness at any disciplinary hearing.

9.7 If the Formal Investigation Panel determines there are no grounds for further action the allegations will be dismissed and this will be confirmed in writing to the respondent and the complainant and any other parties who had been informed. Where appropriate the PVC (Academic) should take necessary steps to support the reputation of the individual and the research project and where the case has received publicity will consider whether an official statement should be released for internal and/or external audiences. Those who have made allegations in good faith will not be penalised in any way and the PVC (Academic) will consider what, if any, support the individual may require. If the PVC (Academic) concludes that the allegation is frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious and the complainant is an employee of the University this may result in disciplinary action.

References

UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research.  [Accessed January 2019]