Procedure for the Investigation of Research Misconduct
Introduction
This Procedure applies to all those undertaking research on behalf of the University, including staff, research students, and those visiting the University to undertake research. If the research in question has not been undertaken on behalf of the University, the case may be dismissed, at the discretion of the Named Person, and/or the person submitting the concern may be advised of alternative organisations to contact.
Any misconduct in research is unacceptable.
Allegations will be investigated thoroughly, fairly and in a timely manner, in accordance with this Procedure. 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 Procedure and, where raised in good faith, will be supported and not penalised.
Any researcher who is found not to have committed misconduct will be supported and appropriate steps taken to restore their reputation and that of any relevant research project(s).
Definitions
The Registrar is designated by the University to act in the role of Named Person and is responsible for:
Receiving formal allegations of research misconduct;
Initiating and supervising the procedure for investigating allegations of research misconduct;
Ensuring the maintenance of the information record during the investigation and subsequently the reporting on the investigation with internal contacts and external organisations;
Taking decisions at key stages in the procedure and investigation.
The Named Person should have a nominated alternate who will initiate and supervise the procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct if delegated by the Registrar, or in the absence of the Registrar, or in the case of any potential or actual conflict of interest.
The Associate Director (Research Culture, Governance & Compliance), Research & Impact Services, is designated as the Research Integrity Officer, responsible for managing research integrity and research misconduct matters, including:
Receiving initial reports of concerns regarding research conduct or allegations of possible research misconduct;
Triaging and referring the concern or allegation: to the Named Person to the formal process outlined in this Procedure, or to the informal resolution process, or to another relevant University process;
Assisting the Named Person to maintain a record of the investigation and to report on the investigation.
The Research Integrity Officer should have a nominated alternate who will carry out the responsibilities above in their absence or in the case of any potential or actual conflict of interest.
This Procedure is designed specifically for the investigation of research misconduct.Allegations of misconduct are often raised as departures from accepted procedures and practice in the conduct of research, as articulated in the University’s Research Code of Practice and related standards and guidance (see Research Integrity and Research Compliance).
Research Misconduct is characterised asintentional and/or reckless behaviour. It includes acts of omission as well as acts of commission.
Research Misconduct which could be investigated under this Procedure, may include, but not be limited to:
fabrication: making up results, other outputs (for example, artefacts) or aspects of research, including documentation and participant consent, and presenting and/or recording them as if they were real
plagiarism: using other people’s ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise) without acknowledgement or permission
failure to meet: legal, ethical and professional obligations, for example:
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
breach of duty of care for humans involved in research whether deliberately, recklessly, or by gross negligence, including failure to obtain appropriate informed consent
misuse of personal data, including inappropriate disclosures of the identity of research participants and other breaches of confidentiality
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:
data, including suppression of relevant results/data or knowingly, recklessly, or by gross negligence presenting a flawed interpretation of data
involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship or attribution of work and denial of authorship/attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution
interests, including failure to declare competing interests of researchers or funders of a study
qualifications, experience, and/or credentials
publication history, through undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication
Definition: Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025)
QRPs may be identified as a result of an allegation of research misconduct or reported as a concern through other routes. If QRPs are identified, then they should be addressed via the informal resolution process detailed in this Procedure.
QRPs refer to minor infractions of research practices, including avoidable errors, which fall short of the definition of intentional research misconduct. They may arise due to a lack of knowledge or attention to detail, negligence, or deliberate action, and may occur where there is no evident intention to deceive.
Definition: Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025)
General Principles
Allegations linked in any way to the Named Person, or which raise the potential for a conflict of interest for the Named Person, must be declared and an alternative senior member of staff identified to supervise the investigation. The Named Person can refer the allegation to their nominated alternate who will notify the Initiator accordingly.
Panel members must declare any links to the research and/or the individuals involved in the allegations; the investigator, the Research Integrity Officer, Senior Officers, or other staff involved in investigating or providing advice at any point in the investigation, must also raise any potential conflicts of interest - if conflicts of interest are identified, where possible, an alternative person should be identified to be involved in the Panel / investigation.
Any investigation should be conducted as confidentially as is reasonably practicable.
The confidential nature of the proceedings should be maintained, throughout and beyond the work of the enquiry, provided this does not compromise either the investigation of the misconduct allegations, any requirements of health and safety, any issue related to the safety of the participants in research, or unless formally sanctioned by the University or otherwise required by law.
Procedure
FIRST STAGE: Receipt of Allegations
The Purpose of this stage is to receive concerns about possible breaches of research integrity.
In research, situations may arise that might present as research misconduct but are the result of either a misunderstanding, are minor, or a dispute between individuals. It may be possible to mediate or resolve such differences at the individual or local / departmental level, and this should be considered and explored where appropriate. Formal investigation procedures should only be instigated if the informal route is inappropriate due to the seriousness of the allegation, or where mediation and/or arbitration has been refused or proved unsuccessful.
The Purpose of this stage is to assess an allegation of research misconduct (if a concern or an allegation cannot be resolved through informal means) and to determine the most appropriate process to investigate or otherwise address it. The primary aim is to determine whether the matter falls under the institutional procedure for investigating misconduct in research. Firstly, this will include whether the Respondent (the person against whom the concern(s) have been raised) is/was conducting research under the auspices of the University / whether the research project(s) to which the matter relates is being or was conducted under the auspices of the University. Secondly, it will determine whether the allegations potentially fall within the definition of research misconduct. The assessment will include if there are sufficient grounds or evidence for a full investigation. Its aim is NOT to investigate the substance of the matter raised.
The Purpose of this stage is to review all relevant evidence to conclude whether any allegations of research misconduct are upheld or not, and to make recommendations for further action.
The appeals stage permits the Initiator and/or the Respondent to appeal in certain circumstances against the findings of an investigation carried out under this Procedure.
This Procedure will normally apply to postgraduate research students, but not normally to undergraduate, taught postgraduate and other types of students (they will usually be subject to the appropriate academic misconduct regulations - see: Regulation 11).
Concerns raised relating specifically to the assessed element of a research degree, (i.e., to a thesis which has been submitted for examination) may be investigated under the University's examination regulations, academic misconduct process or equivalent, instead of under this Procedure (see: Regulation 11).
However, on occasion, allegations of research misconduct or questionable research practices, as defined in this Procedure, and relevant to research activities undertaken by the student, may be dealt with under this Procedure, especially if the allegation / concern involves a published research output, or if the student’s supervisor is implicated in the allegation, or the student is also an employee of the university.
Further information on dealing with student alleged research misconduct or QRPs can be found here.
(Version: v2.2 February 2026. Approved by the University Council 115-C290426)
