Policy and Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct

1.1 As stated in the University Code of Practice on Research Integrity, the University is committed to the highest standards in its research, underpinned by the quality of the research process, from conception through to dissemination and application. In this, it recognises its obligation to the wider research community and to society as a whole to uphold the integrity of academic research. The University also has a responsibility to ensure that the funds it receives are spent in accordance with the legitimate expectations of the funding providers and the law and in the public interest.

1.2 The University has a duty to the research community to investigate allegations of research misconduct; serious potential risks are incurred by the University in terms of reputation and funding as well as the safety of those involved in research if such allegations are not dealt with effectively.

1.3 The Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure outlines the requirements and expectations of the investigation of an allegation of research misconduct, as well as the underlying principles of any such investigation.  The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research is used as a template, and the University of York policy and procedure draws from its recommendations and structure. This is in the interest of consistency across the sector, as well as a recognition of the quality of the UKRIO template. The policy is also informed by the Universities UK (UUK) Concordat to Support Research Integrity, alongside a range of other documents set out in the University Code of Practice on Research Integrity. 

1.4 It is the responsibility of the University of York to ensure a robust procedure is in place for the investigation of an allegation of research misconduct and to carry out any investigation in a fair and equitable manner. The Code of Practice on Research Integrity sets out further the responsibilities of the University for supporting and fostering an open and honest research culture.

2.1 This Policy and Procedure applies to all those undertaking research under the University's auspices; a definition of ‘research’, as well as other relevant terminology, is provided under Section 3: Definitions. 

2.2 This includes both research undertaken on the University's premises using its facilities, and research undertaken on its behalf, by staff, research students, visiting or emeritus staff, associates, honorary or clinical contract holders, contractors and consultants. It applies across all subject disciplines and fields of study. Allegations of misconduct by research students that are not related to the conduct of their research (including but not limited to Formal Reviews of Progress, Thesis and Oral Examination) will be dealt with under the Assessment Misconduct Policy for PGRs in the University's Policy on Research Degrees. Allegations of research misconduct involving research students, even if raised within an assessment process, fall under this procedure for investigation. Where there is doubt, this policy takes precedence.

2.3 Where a member of staff is also a research student and their employment is research related, the staffing elements of the policy will take precedence.

2.4 This Policy and Procedure does not apply to misconduct or gross misconduct unrelated to research activities and processes which are covered by the University's Disciplinary Procedure.

2.5 Other procedures are available for individuals to raise and resolve issues of different concern, for example the Public Interest Disclosure (Speak Up) Policy and the Grievance Procedure.

Research Misconduct:

Under the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, “research misconduct is characterised as behaviours or actions that fall short of the standards of ethics, research and scholarship required to ensure that the integrity of research is upheld.” This can take the form of:

• Fabrication: making up results, other outputs (e.g. artefacts) or aspects of research, including documentation and participant consent, and presenting and/or recording them as if they were real
• Falsification: inappropriately manipulating and/or selecting research processes, materials, equipment, data, imagery and/or consents
• Plagiarism: using other people’s ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise) without acknowledgement or permission, including the inappropriate use of generative AI tools.
• Failure to meet: legal, ethical and professional obligations, for example
1. Not observing legal, ethical and other requirements for human research participants, animal subjects, or human organs or tissue used in research, or for the protection of the environment
2. Breach of duty of care for humans involved in research whether deliberately, recklessly or by gross negligence, including failure to obtain appropriate informed consent 
3. Misuse of personal data, including inappropriate disclosures of the identity of research participants and other breaches of confidentiality
4. Improper conduct in peer review of research proposals, results or manuscripts submitted for publication. This includes failure to disclose conflicts of interest; inadequate disclosure of clearly limited competence; misappropriation of the content of material; and breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided in confidence for the purposes of peer review
• Misrepresentation of:
1. Data, including suppression of relevant results/data or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence presenting a flawed interpretation of data
2. Involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship or attribution of work and denial of authorship/attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution 
3. Interests, including failure to declare competing interests of researchers or funders of a study
4. Qualifications, experience and/or credentials
5. Publication history, through undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication
• Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct: failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistle-blowers, or failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct accepted as a condition of funding. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct includes the inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements

 

Complainant 

Under the UKRIO Template Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research, the Complainant is “a person making allegations of misconduct of research against one or more Respondents. They need not be a member of the Organisation.”

 

Respondent 

Under the UKRIO Template Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research, the Respondent is “the person against whom allegations of misconduct in research have been made. They will be a present or past employee/research student of the Organisation that is investigating the allegations using the Procedure, or an individual visiting the Organisation to

undertake research.”

 

Named Person

Under the UKRIO Template Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research, the Named Person is “the individual nominated by the Organisation (see paragraph 9) to have

responsibility for receiving any allegations of misconduct in research; initiating and supervising the Procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct in research; maintaining the record of information during the investigation and subsequently reporting on the investigation to internal contacts and external organisations; and taking decisions at key stages of the Procedure.” At the University of York this is the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research. 

 

Nominated Alternate

The individual who is responsible for carrying out the role of the Named Person in their absence or in the case of any potential or actual conflict of interest. The Named Person and the nominated alternate should not be the Organisation's Principal or equivalent, or Head of Human Resources. At the University of York this is the Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research.

 

Research

The definition of research used by the University of York is based on the Frascati Manual, in alignment with the Higher Education Statistical Authority (HESA). This states that “research and experimental development (R&D) comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications of available knowledge.” R&D covers three areas of activity:

• Basic research: Experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.
• Applied research: Also original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective.
• Experimental development: Systematic work, drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience that is directed to producing new materials, products or devices, to installing new processes, systems and services, or to substantially improving those already produced or installed.

4.1 The policy sits alongside other research governance policies within the University of York, including the Code of Practice on Research Integrity and the Code and Practice and Principles of Good Ethical Governance.

4.2 The Policy and Procedure are underpinned by the following core principles:

• Fairness

• Investigations into allegations of research misconduct will be conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties.

• Individuals against whom allegations of research misconduct have been made will be provided with full details of the allegation(s) in writing and provided with the opportunity to respond to them including provision for asking questions, presenting evidence, calling relevant witnesses and providing responses to information presented.

• The University recognises that it must protect individuals from allegations of research misconduct which are frivolous, vexatious, malicious or reckless or wholly without substance. Appropriate action will be taken under the University's Disciplinary Procedure against any individual who is found to have made such an allegation.

• Integrity

• Investigations into allegations of research misconduct will be fair, comprehensive and conducted expediently but without compromising accuracy, objectivity and thoroughness.

• Individuals who are involved in the procedure must ensure that any interests they have which might cause a conflict of interest are disclosed to their HoD or to the PVCR at the earliest opportunity so they may be managed appropriately.

• Confidentiality

• The procedure will be conducted as confidentially as possible, in order to protect those involved in an investigation provided this does not compromise the investigation of the allegation(s), or health and safety of participants in the research.

• Where possible any disclosure to third parties should be made on a confidential basis.

• If the University and/or its staff have legal obligations to inform third parties - for example funding bodies - of allegations of research misconduct, those obligations must be fulfilled at the appropriate time through the correct mechanism.

• No detriment

• No individual against whom allegations of research misconduct have been made will have any sanction taken against them unless and until the allegation(s) have been upheld.

• At any stage in the procedure, if appropriate, an employee may be suspended. Suspension is not a penalty and is not an indication of culpability and will be on full pay.

• No individual who makes allegations of research misconduct against another individual in good faith will have any sanction taken against them.

• Balance

• A balance may need to be struck by an investigating officer between disclosure of identities and confidentiality, bearing in mind the expectations and requirements of funding bodies. Such decisions will be based on the primary aim of determining whether the allegations are founded.

• Consideration will be given to the steps to be taken to reasonably and appropriately restore reputations.

• Proportionate action will be taken against individuals considered to have committed research misconduct.

 

4.3 The aim of the Policy and associated Procedure is to deal with allegations of research misconduct fairly and transparently. It provides a framework for an effective, thorough and sensitive response to allegations of research misconduct. The Procedure sets out how allegations of research misconduct will be dealt with both informally and formally.

4.4 The Procedure for investigations is as follows, with more detail on each stage available in Section Five:

• Receipt of allegation

• Initial Investigation Stage

• Full Investigation Stage

• Outcomes and Reporting Stage

• Appeals Stage

 

Collaborative Working

 

4.5 In instances where the research is conducted at, by or with colleagues from more than one institution, the University will work with partner institutions to ensure the agreement of, and compliance with, agreed standards and procedures for the conduct of collaborative research. This will include identifying routes to resolve any issues or problems that may arise as well as investigating allegations of research misconduct. The University will apply the principles in the Russell Group Statement of Cooperation regarding research misconduct investigations. 

4.6 As noted above (Section 2: Scope), the University is only empowered to investigate activities that have occurred within its precincts or that have been undertaken on its behalf. If necessary, however, it may request that the employing organisation either cooperates in the investigation or undertakes its own investigation. This will also apply in the case of researchers who are employed by other HEIs but who are undertaking research on University premises.

4.7 Where staff are joint appointments, for example Clinical Academics in HYMS, joint oversight of an investigation may be appropriate where the research has involved both University facilities and other facilities, for example hospitals, or patients.

Responsibility of the University

4.8 Both the complainant and the respondent may be accompanied to meetings throughout the formal procedure by a work colleague or trade union representative, or student representative in the case of Research Student. Requests to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative or student representative in the case of Research Student during the informal stage of the procedure shall be considered where they are likely to assist in the resolution of the case. Legal representation/attendance at meetings is not permitted as part of the Research Misconduct procedure.

4.9 The University will consider the contractual details specific to the research project(s) concerned. The University will establish whether it has any contractual/legal obligations towards a funding body to ensure that any such obligations are fulfilled at the appropriate time through the correct mechanisms. Staff from the Research Grant Operations (RGO) Office will be involved to determine such contractual/legal obligations and will initiate the necessary action with the funding body, advising the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research (PVC-R) as appropriate. 

5.1 Receipt of Allegations (including early resolution outcomes)

5.1.1 The purpose of this stage is to assess whether there is a case to be answered and to identify the most appropriate route for doing so. This stage is not intended to assess the substance of the case itself. This stage will be conducted by the PVC-R, with the support of the institutional Research Integrity lead (Policy, Integrity and Performance Officer for Integrity). 

5.1.2 An allegation of research misconduct should be made in the first instance to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research (hereafter referred to as the ‘Named Person’). Complainants may wish to seek advice from their Head of Department or the institutional research integrity officer prior to formal submission, however they will be asked to formally submit in writing to the Named Person to initiate the process.

5.1.3 When raising concerns, complainants should provide a summary of the allegation along with other relevant information. Key evidence should be included at this stage to support the allegation. Although it is helpful if allegations are made in a single submission, to enable a thorough assessment of the concerns raised and best identify a route forward, it should be recognised that not all complainants will be familiar with such requirements. All allegations should receive a thorough and fair assessment regardless of their presentation. Complainants will normally put their name to the allegation.

5.1.4 Where a counter-allegation of research misconduct or an allegation of research misconduct is raised unrelated to the matter under investigation, this will be addressed as a separate matter and forwarded to the Named Person for consideration. This will be the case no matter what stage the Procedure has reached.

5.1.5 Following receipt of the allegation, the PVC-R will acknowledge receipt in writing, and inform the complainant that the allegation will be considered under the ‘Receipt of Allegations’ stage of the Procedure. A copy of the Procedure must be provided to the Complainant. Normally the Respondent will be informed of the name of the Complainant(s), except in exceptional circumstances and following advice from HR or Student and/or Legal Services. 

5.1.6 The PVC-R will then assess the allegation to determine whether it falls under the auspices of the Policy and Procedure and, if so, what the most appropriate route would be to address the concerns raised. A reasonable and critical approach to evidence concerning allegations of research misconduct will be applied and will be evaluated to determine:

• • Whether the Respondent(s) is/was conducting research under the auspices of the institution, whether solely or in conjunction with others internal or external to the institution;

  • Whether the research project(s) to which the allegation relates are or were conducted under the auspices of the institution, whether solely or in conjunction with other bodies; and

  • Whether the allegation(s) potentially fall within the definition of misconduct in research as defined under 4.2.

5.1.7 Where the respondent is a member of staff, the Policy, Integrity and Performance (PIP) Office and HR should be consulted for advice on the implementation of this Procedure. PIP will inform the Research Grants Operations Office as required. Where the respondent is a research student, the (PIP) Office and the Dean of the Graduate Research School should be consulted for advice on the implementation of this procedure. Confidential advice may also be sought from persons with relevant expertise, both within and without the institution, with consideration paid to potential conflicts of interest.

5.1.8 All individuals should feel supported to make an allegation or complaint without fear of reprisal, provided the allegation or complaint is done without malice and in good faith, reasonably believing it to be true. Complainants do not need to be a member of the University. The Complainant may wish to address the issue with either the individual concerned or an appropriate senior colleague rather than raising a concern via this procedure in the first instance, or they may wish to seek advice from the institution research integrity officer; where the Complainant is unsatisfied with the outcome of an informal approach they should raise their concern under this procedure. 

5.1.9 If it is felt necessary to contact the Complainant and/or Respondent to seek further information, any contact should be in writing. Correspondence with the Respondent should be preceded by informing them of the allegation(s) and the action being taken to assess appropriate next steps. 

5.1.10 Consideration must also be given to the research project(s) in question, namely whether immediate action is required to prevent further risk or harm. If so, the Named Person will take immediate appropriate action to ensure any such potential or actual danger/illegal activity/risk is prevented or eliminated. This may involve notification to legal or regulatory authorities or relevant professional bodies, partner organisations, publishers and funders. The Respondent may also need to be informed if this is the case; please refer to 5.1.9.

5.1.11 The Named Person will also assess whether the research project(s) in question include legal or contractual obligations that must be undertaken in the event of such an allegation. This may include reporting to a regulatory or funding body. The Named Person will ensure all requirements are met, seeking advice where necessary. The obligations may be noted in:

• • A contract/agreement or guidance on research conduct from a regulator or a funding body;

  • A partnership contract/agreement/Memorandum of Understanding; or

  • An agreement to sponsor the research. 

5.1.12 Following full consideration of the available facts the Named Person will decide the outcome of this stage. This may be one of the following:

a) The allegation merits referral to an external organisation/process, including but not limited to the research organisation(s) under whose auspices the research took place, statutory regulators, or professional bodies.

b) The allegation merits referral to an internal process, including but not limited to examination regulations, academic misconduct or equivalent, bullying/harassment procedure or equivalent, financial fraud investigation process or equivalent, or the disciplinary process.

c) The allegation appears to relate to poor practice or a capability issue, rather than misconduct, and as such is better addressed through informal measures such as education, training, mediation or other non-disciplinary approaches. 

d) The allegation should be dismissed as it does not fall under the remit of the Procedure and does not need to be referred elsewhere.

e) The allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is within the scope of the Procedure, and therefore should advance to the Initial Investigation Stage.

5.1.13 The Named Person must write a note summarising their assessment of the allegation(s) and inform other contacts as appropriate of the next steps.

5.1.14 Where the outcome is determined to be (a)-(d) above, the Procedure is at an end. See below, ‘Outcomes and Reporting’ (5.4), for information on managing the final stage.

5.1.15 Where the outcome is determined to be (e), above, the Named Person must inform the Respondent of the following, formally and in writing:

a) An allegation of misconduct in research has been made which involves them;

b) A summary of the allegation(s) and a copy of the Procedure.

c) That it has been determined at the Receipt of Allegations stage that the matter has sufficient substance and falls under the procedure and therefore will proceed to the ‘Initial Investigation’ stage.

d) That they will be allowed to respond to the allegation(s) and set out their case,

e) The conclusion of the initial assessment of the allegation(s), an outline of the next steps and appropriate timescales. This should include the name of the investigator, when possible, and an indication of when they will contact the Respondent.

f) When allegations have been made against more than one Respondent, the Named Person should inform each individual separately and not divulge the identity of any other Respondent.

5.1.16 The Complaint must be informed, formally and in writing, of the above outcome. Such communication, at this stage and all subsequent stages, will be the responsibility of the Research Integrity Officer.

 

5.2 Initial Investigation Stage

5.2.1 The purpose of this stage is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of research misconduct to warrant advancement to the Full Investigation stage. 

5.2.2 As soon as is practicable, an Investigator should be appointed to undertake the Initial Investigation. This should be an experienced member of academic staff within the institution, and can be from within or without the department concerned depending on the circumstances of the case. The Respondent and the Complainant may raise concerns regarding the choice of Investigator or Investigation Panel, however neither has a right of veto.

5.2.3 All persons appointed to carry out the Initial Investigation will confirm in writing that:

a) Their participation involves no conflict of interest;

b) They will abide by the Procedure;

c) They will respect the confidentiality of the proceedings; and

d) They will adhere to the Principles and Standards of the Procedure. 

5.2.4 In the event that the Investigator becomes unable to participate once the investigation is underway, the Named Person will determine whether a new person should be selected to take on the role of Investigator and either continue the investigation from its current point or restart the Initial Investigation stage. 

5.2.5 The Named Person will provide the Investigator with all the relevant information required to investigate the allegation, including correspondence and information already provided. A full record of the evidence and proceedings must be kept by the Investigator. The Investigator will contact the Complainant and Respondent to gather further evidence, and may contact relevant witnesses.

5.2.6 The Investigator will assess the information obtained and carry out the following:

a) Determination of whether the allegation was made in good faith

b) Confidential review and assessment of the evidence

c) Conclusion in line with the outcomes set out below

5.2.7 Both the Complainant and Respondent should have the ability to input into the investigation. This may be in writing or as part of an investigatory interview. The Respondent will be allowed to respond to the allegations made against them. 

5.2.8 Allegations concerning large bodies of work or work carried out over a long period of time will require more time and resources to investigate. Advice should be sought from the Named Person as to the conduct of such investigations. 

5.2.9 Following the gathering and assessment of information, the Investigator will write a report on the outcome of the investigation(s); where more than one allegation has been raised, separate reports will be written. A summary of findings will be sent to the Complainant and Respondent on matters of factual accuracy, and the report(s) will be amended as necessary. 

5.2.10 Following full consideration of the available facts the Investigator will determine whether the allegation of misconduct in research:

a) Is sufficiently serious and has sufficient substance to warrant advancement to the Full Investigation stage;

b) has some substance but due to its relatively minor nature or because it relates to poor practice rather than to misconduct, it ought to be addressed through education and training or another non-disciplinary approach, such as mediation, rather than through the next stage of the Procedure or other formal processes; or

c) Warrants referral to another formal process, including but not limited to examination regulations, the academic misconduct process, the Dignity at Work and Study policy and procedure, the Fraud Response Plan or the disciplinary procedure.

d) Warrants referral to an external organisation

e) Is unfounded as it is mistaken or frivolous or without substance and will be dismissed

f) Unfounded because it is vexatious or malicious and will be dismissed.

5.2.11 The report(s) will be submitted to the Named Person, alongside supporting records and material related to the investigation. The final report should set out the conclusions of the Initial Investigation stage, as well as any other matters they wish to draw attention to. 

5.2.12 The Named Person will convey the substance of the findings to the Complainant, the Respondent and other relevant persons or bodies as they deem appropriate. 

5.2.13 The Named Person to take the following steps depending on the outcome determined through the Initial Investigation:

a) If deemed serious and substantive enough to merit a full investigation, the investigation should move to the Full Investigation stage (section 5.3.)

b) For all other outcomes, the investigation should move to the Outcomes and Reporting stage (section 5.4.)

5.2.14 Following the above, the work of the Investigator is concluded and they play no further part in the Procedure (aside from clarifying points in their report. It is important that the Investigator makes no further comment unless asked by the institution or required in law, as the information involved may give rise to disciplinary action. 

5.3 Full Investigation Stage 

5.3.1 The purpose of this stage is to establish whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation of research misconduct should be upheld. It is also intended to make recommendations as to the appropriate route for addressing any misconduct identified and correcting the research record.

5.3.2 As soon as is practicable following the conclusion of the Initial Investigation Stage, the Named Person will appoint a Full Investigation Panel to undertake a Full Investigation into the allegation(s). 

a) The Panel will normally consist of three people. More than three people may be involved if, for example, it is felt that wider expertise is needed. 

b) At least one member of the Panel should be external to the University. The Panel may include multiple external members; this may be advantageous where investigations cross a number of disciplines or are particularly complex. The decision to include multiple external members should be made at the discretion of the Named Person.

c) At least two members of the Panel shall be academic specialists in the general area within which the misconduct is alleged to have taken place, and where allegations concern highly specialised areas of research the Panel should have at least one member with specialised knowledge of the field. Such specialists can be drawn from within the Organisation or from the Panel's external member(s).

d) Where allegations involve staff on joint contracts with other institutions, it is recommended that the panel include representation from the other institution. Such members would not count as the external member. Joint investigations of misconduct should be conducted with the principles of the Russell Group Statement of Cooperation on Cross-Institutional Investigations in mind.

e) The Named Person will select one of the members of the Panel to act as Chair. At the discretion of the Named Person, the Chair may be an external member of the Panel. If the individual appointed as Chair becomes unable to participate once the Full Investigation is underway, a new Chair will be selected from the membership of the Panel (and appoint a new member, if appropriate).

f) All individuals appointed to conduct the Full Investigation will confirm the following in writing to the Named Person: (a) their participation involves no conflict of interest (b) they will abide by the Procedure (c) they will respect confidentiality and data protection requirements and (d) they will adhere to the Principles and Standards set out in the Procedure.

5.3.3 The Respondent and Complainant may raise with the Named Person concerns about those chosen to carry out the Full Investigation, however neither has a right of veto over those nominated. 

5.3.4 The Chair will keep a full record of the evidence received and the proceedings and will be supported in this by the support identified by the Named Person to assist the Panel. The Chair and each member of the Panel will be provided with:

a) A copy of the Procedure

b) Details of the allegation(s)

c) A copy of the Named Person’s note of the Receipt of Allegations stage

d) A copy of the Initial Investigation report, and other relevant records from this stage

e) Names and contact details for the Complainant(s) and Respondent(s)

f) A summary of correspondence with both Complaint(s) and Respondent(s) to date

g) A summary of evidence secured by the Named Person during the Receipt of Allegations stage or by the Investigator during the Initial Investigation stage.

5.3.5 The Complainant and Respondent will be informed formally and in writing that the Procedure has moved to the Full Investigation stage, that they may be interviewed as part of the process, and that they will be allowed to provide evidence. They will also be informed that they may be accompanied to any meetings by a colleague or Trade Union representative. In the case of a Research Student, they may be accompanied by a representative from the Student Union. Normally the Respondent will be informed of the name of the Complainant(s), except in exceptional circumstances and following advice from HR or Student and/or Legal Services. The Complainant will be informed if their identity is disclosed to the Respondent. 

Operation and Conduct of the Panel

5.3.6 The aim of the Panel is to reach a judgement on the balance of probabilities. The panel does not have any disciplinary powers. When making decisions regarding the conduct or conclusion(s) of the Full Investigation Stage, the Panel should attempt to reach consensus by discussion. 

5.3.7 The Panel should determine its ways of working based on the provisions of the Procedure and the information available, to assess whether further interviews or statements are required. Both the Complainant and the Respondent must be interviewed.

5.3.8 The work of the Panel includes the following:

a) To determine whether the allegation is made in good faith;

b) To review and assess of the evidence;

c) To reach a conclusion in line with the possible outcomes set out below (5.3.13); and 

d) If appropriate, to make recommendations on further actions to address issues identified in the Full Investigation.

5.3.9 The Complainant and Respondent must be separately interviewed, and have the right to be accompanied by a colleague, trade or student union representative, or by anyone else specified in additional contractual rights. Where there are multiple Complainants and/or Respondents each must be interviewed separately. The Respondent will be able to respond to the allegations, set out their case and submit their evidence for consideration before the interview. They are also able to suggest witnesses for the Panel to interview. 

5.3.10 In instances where the Complainant or Respondent does not wish to be interviewed, they should be invited to engage through other means, for example providing written responses to questions. 

5.3.11 Allegations may be made which cover significant time periods or large bodies of work. A sufficient investigation will need to be carried out in order to reach a robust conclusion. Advice should be sought from the Named Person as to how best to manage the required time and resources to do so. 

Conclusion of the Panel

5.3.12 A report will be prepared by the Panel setting out their conclusion(s). This should include the reasons for the decision and should also record any differences in opinion amongst the Panel members. 

5.3.13 After the Full investigation, the panel will conclude whether the allegation of misconduct in research: 

a) Is upheld in full; or

b) Is upheld in part; or

c) has some substance but due to its relatively minor nature or because it relates to poor practice rather than to misconduct, it ought to be addressed through education and training or another non-disciplinary approach, such as mediation, rather than through the next stage of the Procedure or other formal processes; or

d) Warrants referral directly to another formal process of the Organisation, including but not limited to examination regulations, academic misconduct process or equivalent, the bullying and harassment procedure or equivalent, the financial fraud investigation process or equivalent, or the disciplinary procedure; or

e) Warrants referral directly to an external organisation, including but not limited to the current employer, statutory regulators or professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant where there are concerns relating to Fitness to Practise; or

f) is unfounded, because it is mistaken or is frivolous or is otherwise without substance and will be dismissed; or

g) is unfounded, because it is vexatious and/or malicious, and will be dismissed.

5.3.14 The Panel may also make recommendations, for consideration by the Named Person,  to address issues identified during the Full Investigation. These may include:

a) whether the matter should be referred to the Disciplinary Procedure, or, in the case of research students, Regulation 7; and/or

b) whether the matter should be referred to another relevant Organisational process, such as the examination regulations, academic misconduct process or equivalent or the Organisation's financial fraud investigation process; and/or

c) what external organisations should be informed of the findings of the investigation, with appropriate confidentiality, including statutory regulators, relevant funding bodies, partner organisations and professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant if concerns relate to Fitness to Practise; and/or

d) whether any action will be required to correct the record of research, including informing the publishers and editors of any journals that have published articles concerning research linked to an upheld allegation of misconduct in research or to correct honest errors, or correcting a thesis in the University repository; and/or

e) whether procedural or organisational matters should be addressed by the Organisation or other relevant bodies through a review of the management of research; and/or

f) informing research participants or patients or their doctors; and/or 

g) other matters that should be investigated, including allegations of misconduct in research which are either unrelated to the allegation in question or alleged to have been committed by persons other than the Respondent and/or other forms of alleged misconduct.

5.3.15 The outcome of the Full Investigation Stage, including any recommendations identified, will be sent to the Complainant and the Respondent for comment on matters of factual accuracy. Comments will be considered and the report will be amended as necessary. 

5.3.16 The final report will be submitted to the Named Person. This should include (i) the conclusions of the Full Investigation stage (ii) any recommendations regarding further actions and (iii) any other matters that require the attention of the University.

5.3.17 The substance of the Panel’s findings will be conveyed to the Complainant, Respondent and other appropriate persons and/or bodies. 

Resolution of the Full Investigation Stage

5.3.18 Following submission of the report, the Panel will be disbanded. Members should bear in mind confidentiality requirements, which still apply following the conclusion of the work of the Panel. 

5.3.19 Those who have contributed to the Panel should have no further involvement in the process unless formally asked to clarify a point in their written report. Membership of the Panel rules out participation in subsequent processes, for example the disciplinary procedure.  

5.4 Outcomes and Reporting Stage

5.4.1 The purpose of this stage is to ensure all aspects of the use of the procedure are concluded appropriately, in line with the internal and external requirements. These might be those set out by University governance, as well as those required by funders, publishers and the law. It is the responsibility of the Named Person to ensure all actions are carried out, in conjunction with other internal or external departments as relevant. 

5.4.2 Possible outcomes may include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Actions relating to the operation and conclusion (subject to any subsequent appeal) of this procedure, including the transfers of information to other organisational processes or informal measures, and/or to any relevant processes of external organisations; and/or

b) Reporting the outcomes to relevant colleagues/bodies within the Organisation, for example line managers, Human Resources and/or Student Services, Academic Board or equivalent; and/or

c) Making necessary disclosures on the outcomes of uses of the Procedure to external organisations and other interested parties; and/or

d) Duty of Care to Complainants, Respondents and other involved parties, including but not limited to research participants; and/or

e) Ensuring that appropriate efforts are made to correct the research record; and/or

f) Addressing procedural or organisational matters uncovered during the investigation. 

 

5.4.3 The required steps fall into the following categories:

a) Required actions, which relate to any use of the Procedure: The Named Person working with the Research Integrity Officer, and with others as necessary, should take any further action(s) they deem necessary to: address any misconduct the investigation may have found; correct the record of research, and/or address other matters uncovered during the course of the investigation. Such recommendations might include but are not limited to:

• • whether following the conclusion of the operation of this Procedure, the matter should be referred to the Organisation's relevant disciplinary procedure; and/or

  • whether following the conclusion of the operation of this Procedure, the matter referred to another relevant Organisational process, such as the examination regulations, academic misconduct process or equivalent or the Organisation's financial fraud investigation process; and/or

  • what individuals and/or departments within the Organisation should be notified of the findings of the investigation, such as line managers, Human Resources and/or Student Services, a central committee with responsibility for research quality, or equivalents; and/or

  • what external organisations should be informed of the findings of the investigation, with appropriate confidentiality, such as statutory regulators, relevant funding bodies, partner organisations and professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant if concerns relate to Fitness to Practise; and/or

  • informing research participants and other involved parties; and/or

  • whether any action will be required to correct the record of research, including but not limited to informing the editors of any journals that have published articles concerning research linked to an upheld allegation of misconduct in research and/or by a person against whom an allegation of misconduct in research has been upheld; and/or

  • whether procedural or organisational matters should be addressed by the Organisation or other relevant bodies through a review of the management of research and other measures as appropriate; and/or

  • other matters that should be investigated, including allegations of misconduct in research which are either unrelated to the allegation in question or alleged to have been committed by persons other than the Respondent and/or other forms of alleged misconduct; and/or

  • communication of anonymised summary data on uses of this Procedure within a specific period. This includes reporting required in the Annual statement on research integrity required under The Concordat to support Research Integrity, reports to relevant central committees/ departments within the Organisation, and dissemination of anonymised learning points within the Organisation as appropriate.

 

b) Actions following the conclusion that the allegation is unfounded because it is mistaken, frivolous or otherwise without substance: The Named Person shall take appropriate steps to preserve the good reputation of the Respondent. If the case has received any adverse publicity the respondent may be offered the opportunity to have an official statement released by the University. Those who have raised concerns/ made allegations in good faith will not be penalised and the Named Person shall take appropriate steps to preserve the good reputation of the Complainant. Appropriate communications on the outcome and the reasons for it will be important to ensure a good understanding of the process and outcome.

c) Actions following the conclusion that the allegation is unfounded because it is vexatious or malicious: The Named Person may consider recommending to the appropriate authorities that action be taken against anyone where there is clear evidence that a complaint was vexatious and/or malicious. This may include disciplinary action where the individual is internal to the Organisation. The Named Person shall take appropriate steps to preserve the good reputation of the respondent. If the case has received any adverse publicity the Respondent may be offered the opportunity to have an official statement released by the University.

d) Actions following the conclusion that the allegation warrants referral to an external organisation: When the Named Person has determined that the allegation does not relate to researchers or research under the auspices of the Organisation, the Named Person will inform the Complainant, in writing, of:

• • The reasons why the Organisation is not an appropriate body to investigate the allegation;

  • Which external organisation(s) might be an appropriate body to investigate the allegation;

  • Relevant information relating to contacting the external organisation(s).

 

When the Named Person has determined that, while the allegation does relate to researchers or research under the auspices of the Organisation, the allegation warrants referral directly to an external organisation, the Named Person will:

• • Contact the relevant external organisation(s), in writing, to inform them of the allegation and ask them to investigate or otherwise address it. The Named Person should also explain why the Organisation has concluded that the allegation warrants referral directly to the external organisation in question.

  • Inform the Complainant, in writing, that the allegation is being referred directly to the external organisation(s) in question and provide the Complainant with relevant information so that they can contact the external organisation(s) in question if they so wish.

e) Actions following the conclusion that the allegation warrants referral to another internal process: Where this is necessary, the Named Person will inform the Complainant in writing of:

• • the reasons why the allegation cannot be investigated using this Procedure;

  • which process for dealing with complaints is appropriate for handling the allegation; and

  • that the allegation will be referred to the relevant department/ process.

The Named Person will then refer the matter to the relevant department/process.

f) Actions following the conclusion that the allegation has some substance but is minor or related to poor practice: The Named Person shall ensure that the relevant education and training or other informal measures are provided either directly or by referring the matter to the relevant department.

g) Actions following the conclusion that the allegation should be upheld in full or in part: The Named Person in conjunction with relevant colleagues should decide whether the matter should be referred to the Organisation's disciplinary process or for other formal actions. Should the allegations proceed to the Organisation's disciplinary process, the report of the Full Investigation Panel should form the basis of the evidence that the disciplinary panel receives. Relevant information collected and brought to light through the Procedure should be transferred to the disciplinary process.

5.4.4 Steps should be taken as appropriate to support the reputation of the Complainant and, if the allegation has been upheld in part rather than in full, the Respondent as appropriate, as well as the integrity of any relevant research project(s). 

5.4.5 Further measures may be recommended in addition to the outcomes laid out above, and these will be communicated to the relevant colleagues by the Research Integrity Officer. Examples of these may include but are limited to:

a) Recommendations for retraction/correction of published research, via notification of findings to editors/ publishers;

b) withdrawal/repayment of funding;

c) notifying research participants and other involved parties;

d) notification of findings to relevant employers, statutory, regulatory, professional, grant-awarding bodies or other public bodies with a relevant interest;

e) notifying other employing organisations;

f) notifying other organisations involved in the research;

g) adding a note of the outcome of the investigation to a researcher's file for any future requests for references;

h) review internal management and/or training and/or supervisory procedures for research; and/or

i) revocation of any degrees awarded based on research that is the subject of a research misconduct finding.

5.4.6 Further investigation may be required in instances where research misconduct relates to research carried out over a large period of time or comprising a significant body of work. Consideration will also be needed as to whether other work carried out by the individual(s) concerned needed further investigation.

5.4.7 The Complainant and Respondent will be informed of:

a) The actions arising from this stage of the Procedure and any relevant actions arising from earlier stages and, where relevant, the contact points for any follow-up communications regarding those actions.

b) The options for appeal open to them (see 5.5).

c) They should also be informed that, unless an appeal is raised, the investigation and the use of this Procedure have now concluded.

5.4.8 The Named Person and the Research Integrity Officer should be involved in follow-up actions, or receiving reports on follow-up actions, as appropriate. Both the Named Person and the Research Integrity Officer are unable to participate in any subsequent disciplinary process.

 

5.5 Appeals Stage

5.5.1 The purpose of this stage is to enable those involved in the use of the Procedure to appeal decisions made on procedural grounds. The appeal must focus on the conduct of the investigation, and is not intended as a means through which to reinvestigate the initial allegation. Provision for appeals is required under the UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

5.5.2 The Appeals Stage must be led by an individual other than the Named Person in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. The Alternative Named Person will establish an Appeals Panel.

Process of the Appeals Panel

5.5.3 An appeal should normally be heard within two months of the outcome of an investigation; delays will be explained to the Complainant and the Respondent in writing and accompanied by an estimated completion date.

5.5.4 Appeals may be permitted on any or all of the following grounds:

a) Procedural irregularity in the conduct of the investigation up to and before the Appeal Panel that could have had a material impact on the outcome.

b) Fresh evidence becoming available which was not available to the Investigator and/or the Full Investigation Panel.

c) There was evidence of bias or unfairness in the process or decisions taken by the Named Person, Investigator and/or a member/members of the Full Investigation Panel.

d) The recommendations made as part of an outcome of the Procedure/subsequent actions taken are either excessive or inadequate concerning the misconduct found by the investigation.

5.5.5 An appeal can be made by the Complainant and/or the Respondent, concerning the outcomes of the Procedure or the decisions and/or recommendations associated with them. Appeals should be made in writing to the Alternative Named Person within 10 working days of notification of outcomes. This notice of appeal should set out the grounds of appeal and be accompanied by supporting documentation wherever possible.

5.5.6 The Alternative Named Person will assess the appeal to determine whether it falls within one or more of the grounds set out above. Clarification from the person(s) submitting the appeal can be sought as necessary. There are two potential outcomes of this:

a) The appeal will be dismissed if it does not fall into one or more of the grounds for appeal set out above. This decision will be communicated to the individual who submitted the appeal, and the Appeals Stage ends.

b) The appeal will be taken forward as part of the Appeals Stage if it is determined to fall within one of the grounds for appeal set out above. An Appeals Panel will be appointed as soon as practicable to initiate the process.

5.5.7 The requirements for the Appeals Panel are as follows:

a) The Appeals Panel will consist of at least three people, with a greater number being used where the circumstances of the investigation merit this (for example, to ensure that there is sufficient expertise and diversity in perspective to reach a thorough and fair conclusion). The decision to use more than three people will be made at the discretion of the Alternative Named Person.

b) No individual previously involved in any prior stage as an Investigator, a member of a Full Investigation Panel or as the Named Person may be involved at this stage. 

c) One member of the Appeals Panel should be from outside the Organisation. More than one external member may be involved, for example where the case involves multiple disciplines and/or is especially complex; this decision will be made at the discretion of the Alternative Named Person.

d) One member of the Appeals Panel should be an academic specialist in the general area within which the misconduct is alleged to have taken place. This may be an internal or an external member. Where multiple disciplines are involved, it may be necessary to increase the membership of the panel to ensure sufficient expertise.

e) For cases involving staff on joint clinical/honorary contracts, representation from the other employing Organisation(s) is encouraged. Such individuals would not be classified as an external member of the Appeals Panel.

f) The membership of the Appeals Panel should not normally be changed. If the membership falls below its original number, the Alternative Named Person will assess whether additional members should be recruited to continue the investigation from its current point or whether the investigation should be restarted.

g) All individuals appointed to carry out the Appeals Stage, as well as all those allowed to observe it, will confirm the following in writing to the Named Person: (a) their participation involves no conflict of interest (b) they will abide by the Procedure (c) they will respect confidentiality and data protection requirements and (d) they will adhere to the Principles and Standards set out in the Procedure. 

5.5.8 One of the members of the Appeals Panel will be selected as Chair by the Alternative Named Person. If the individual selected becomes unable to take part, a new Chair should be selected from the membership of the Panel and the overall membership considered as relevant. The Chair can be an external member at the Alternative Named Person’s discretion, and this may help provide assurance that the investigation will be transparent, thorough and fair. 

5.5.9 Both the Respondent and the Complainant have the right to raise concerns regarding those chosen to carry out the Appeals Stage, however neither has a right of veto. Concerns should be raised in writing, to aid transparency and record-keeping. The Alternative Named Person will consider any concerns raised and whether new persons should be selected to carry out the Appeals Stage.

5.5.10 A full record of the work of the Appeals Panel should be kept. This is the responsibility of the Chair of the Panel, supported by the administrator identified by the Named Person to assist the Panel.

5.5.11 The Appeals Panel will  review the conduct of the investigation and the supporting evidence, rather than re-investigate the allegation(s) in question. Decisions should be reached through consensus. 

5.5.12 The Appeals Panel will decide whether it upholds, reverses or modifies the outcome in question, including the decisions and/or recommendations associated with it. The decision of the Appeal Panel is final. 

5.5.13 The Appeals Panel will write a report setting out its conclusions and noting the reasons for the decision, including a record of any differing views. A summary of the conclusions will be sent to the Complainant and Respondent for comment on matters of factual accuracy, and the report will be modified if necessary. The Appeals Panel will then submit their final report to the Alternative Named Person, along with all records and material relating to the Full Investigation. 

5.5.14 The substance of the Appeals Panel’s findings and recommendations will be conveyed to the Complainant, the Respondent and other appropriate bodies or people by the Research Integrity Officer. 

5.5.15 The Alternative Named Person will undertake the necessary actions to implement the conclusions of the Appeals Panel, following the relevant provisions of the Outcomes and Reporting stage. 

5.5.16 Following the above, the work of the Appeals Panel is concluded and the Panel is disbanded. All members of the Appeals Panel should continue to bear in mind confidentiality requirements. Any queries or requests for comment addressed to the Appeals Panel should be referred on to the Alternative Named Person. 

5.5.17 Any individuals involved in the disbanded Appeals Panel should have no further involvement in the Procedure or in any subsequent disciplinary process.

 

Approval body:	University Research Committee
Policy Owner:	Professor Sarah Thompson, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research
Responsible Service:	Directorate of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange (Policy, Integrity and Performance Office)
Policy Manager:	Policy Officer (Integrity), Policy, Integrity and Performance Office
External regulatory and/or legal requirement addressed:	UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity
Equality Impact Assessment:	N/A
Approval date:	21 November 2024
Effective from:	August 2025
Date of next review:	September 2026