Procedure for the Investigation of Research Misconduct

1. FIRST STAGE: Receipt of Allegations

2. SECOND STAGE: Preliminary Assessment

1. FIRST STAGE: Receipt of Allegations

The Purpose of this stage is to receive concerns about possible breaches of research integrity.

1.1. Reporting

Any concerns regarding research conduct or allegations of possible research misconduct should be made formally in writing (where possible) to the Research Integrity Officer:

Associate Director (Research Culture, Governance and Compliance)

Research & Impact Services, University of Warwick, Coventry. CV4 8UW.

Tel: 024 765 75733

Email: researchgovernance@warwick.ac.uk

This should include any supporting evidence available to the Initiator, who has raised the concern(s) about possible breaches of research integrity. Submissions may be from within or outside the University. The Research Integrity Officer will acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.

An initial approach might be anonymous, but to take forward any allegations, the Initiator should make a formal written submission. It may not be possible to take forward any allegations if submitted anonymously.

The Research Integrity Officer will triage the submission and consider informal resolution if possible (consulting with the Named Person and other senior officers if required). However, if informal resolution is not possible or appropriate, the concern or allegation will either be escalated to the Named Person and the formal process outlined in this Procedure will be progressed; or if deemed outside the scope of this Procedure, they will advise the Initiator of the appropriate University process to which to refer the concern or allegation.

Should a concern of allegation be received by another member of the University, for example, a Director of Research or Head of Department, and it cannot, or is not appropriate to, be resolved locally (see Informal Resolution), they should be referred to the Named Person through the formal process outlined in this Procedure, with the agreement of the Initiator.

1.2. Timing

The Initiator should normally receive an acknowledgement and advice on next steps within 10 working days from receipt of the initial allegation.

2. SECOND STAGE: Preliminary Assessment

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 Named Person will appoint an Investigator to carry out the assessment.

2.1. Acknowledgement of the allegation

Upon referral to the formal process as outlined in this Procedure, the Named Person will formally acknowledge receipt of the allegation in writing to the Initiator, advising the Initiator of the procedure that will be followed and details of the Investigator.

The Named Person will also contact the Respondent, informing them that an allegation of research misconduct has been made concerning them and that the allegation is being assessed to determine what, if any, action should be taken, together with details of the Investigator and the procedure to be followed.

It should be made clear to all parties at this stage that any actions taken under this Procedure do not in themselves indicate that the allegation is considered to be true by the University and that the purpose of this stage is solely to determine the correct process to follow.

Both the Respondent and Initiator may raise with the Named Person concerns that they may have about the Investigator chosen to carry out the assessment stage but neither has a right of veto over the person nominated.

Respondents will normally be informed of the name of any Initiator(s) who have made the allegations concerning them. At the discretion of the Named Person, in exceptional circumstances, the identity of the Initiator(s) may remain confidential. Any such decision should be made after seeking advice from People Team and/or Legal & Compliance services. The Initiator(s) will be informed that their identity is being disclosed to the Respondent(s) unless it has been determined that it should remain confidential.

2.2. Determining the nature of the allegation

The Investigator will assess the allegations to determine whether they fall within the scope of the institutional procedure for investigating misconduct in research and the University's responsibility to address and, if so, what would be the most appropriate process to investigate or otherwise address them.

In carrying out the assessment, the Investigator will consider the information provided and any additional information they require to form a conclusion. The Investigator may:

decide that it is necessary to contact the Initiator and/or the Respondent to seek information or ask questions to carry out the above assessment. If further information is required at this stage from the Initiator and/or the Respondent, it may be requested either in writing or through a meeting with the Initiator / Respondent;
seek confidential advice from persons with relevant expertise, both within the University and outside it;
ask for additional information from other relevant parties, noting that the aim of the assessment is NOT to investigate the substance of the matter raised;
identify suitable professional, administrative, and other support to assist them.

The Investigator will review the allegations and all associated information available and make recommendations to the Named Person. The possible outcomes of the preliminary assessment can include:

the allegation is judged to fall within the definition of research misconduct (as laid out in this Procedure) and is sufficiently serious with sufficient evidence that cannot be discounted and hence warrants a full investigation;
the allegation has some substance but due to its relatively minor nature, or because it relates to QRPs rather than to misconduct, will be addressed through education and training or another non-disciplinary approach, such as informal resolution, rather than through the next stage of the Procedure;
is unfounded, because it is mistaken or is frivolous or is otherwise without substance (this could include difference of opinion on methodology), and will be dismissed;
is unfounded, because it is vexatious and/or malicious, and will be dismissed.

The Named Person will also review the nature of the allegation and where judged serious enough to require immediate action to prevent further risk or harm to staff, research participants or others, suffering to animals or negative environmental consequences, the Named Person will take immediate appropriate action to ensure that any such potential or actual danger, illegal activity or risk is prevented or eliminated. These precautionary actions are not sanctions and do not imply a finding of guilt.

2.3. Informing the Initiator

The Named Person will inform the Initiator, formally and in writing, of the conclusions of the assessment of the allegation and an outline of the next steps.

If the allegation is judged to fall outside the definition of research misconduct, the Named Person will inform the Initiator of the reason why the allegation cannot be investigated under this Procedure and which process for dealing with complaints might be appropriate for handling the allegation, and to whom it should be referred.
If the allegation is judged to fall outside the University’s responsibility to address (i.e. the research was not conducted under the auspices of the University), the Named Person will inform the Initiator of the reason why the allegation cannot be investigated under this Procedure, and if possible, suggest alternative actions (i.e. reporting under another organisation’s procedure or signposting to UKRIO).
If the allegation is dismissed because it is outside the definition of research misconduct, minor in nature, or there is insufficient evidence, and does not need to be referred elsewhere, an appropriate explanation of the reasoning behind the matter not proceeding further should be provided to the Initiator.
If the allegation is judged to fall within the definition of research misconduct and is sufficiently serious that it cannot be resolved through informal resolution, the Named Person will formally notify the Initiator and advise that the allegation will proceed to the next stage of the Procedure.

2.4. Informing the Respondent

The Named Person will inform the Respondent, formally and in writing, of the conclusions of the assessment of the allegation(s) and an outline of the next steps.

If the allegation is judged to fall outside the definition of research misconduct, the Named Person will inform the Respondent of any further steps to be taken, including referral to another process.
If the actions of the Respondent present as being related to QRPs rather than to research misconduct, then the Respondent should be informed that the approach to addressing the matter will be via informal measures, such as education and training, mediation or another non-disciplinary approach, rather than through the next stage of this Procedure or other formal processes. Next steps with timeframes should be agreed with the Respondent in writing. If the Respondent fails to accept the decision, does not follow through on agreed next steps, or additional concerns arise, then further action or referral may be required.
If the allegation is judged to fall within the definition of research misconduct, the Named Person will formally notify the Respondent of the outcome and that the allegation will proceed to the next stage of the Procedure. The Respondent will be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and set out their case at the next stage.

2.5. Informing third parties

Where allegations include behaviour that may be subject to University disciplinary procedures, the Named Person will refer the case to the appropriate process. Reference may be made, but not limited to, any of the following: Disciplinary Procedure; Grievance Procedure; University’s regulations on Behaviour Misconduct (including student harassment and sexual misconduct).

If the allegation is judged to fall within the definition of research misconduct, it may be necessary to inform appropriate senior officers in the University (Research & Impact Services, the People team, Legal, Finance, Head of Department). At this stage, the allegation remains unproven, and the information shared with the appropriate senior officers is confidential.

If the allegation is judged to fall within the definition of research misconduct, it may also be necessary to inform an external funding agency, collaborator, partner or sponsor of the research project(s), subject to any legal or contractual obligations.

2.5 Timing

The Preliminary Assessment Stage should normally be completed within 30 working days from formal acknowledgement of the allegation from the Named Person to the Initiator, provided this does not compromise a full and fair assessment of the allegation. Any delays should be explained to all parties in writing, and a revised completion date given.

3. THIRD STAGE: Full Investigation

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.

3.1. Informing the Initiator and Respondent

Where the Preliminary Assessment judges that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and the findings recommend that the case should progress to the Full Investigation stage, the Named Person will take immediate steps to set up the Full Investigation Panel and inform the Initiator and Respondent (and their representatives, by agreement) that a Full Investigation will take place.

The Named Person will inform the Initiator and the Respondent that they will be interviewed as part of the process and allowed to provide evidence. They will also be informed that they may be accompanied to any meetings by a work colleague or Trade Union representative. If the Initiator or Respondent is a PGR student, they may be accompanied by a Student Union representative.

3.2. Full Investigation Panel

The Named Person will nominate the Chair and members of the Full Investigation Panel for approval by the Vice Chancellor (or delegate) who may veto nominations, recording the reason for the veto in writing and communicating it to all parties. The Named Person should consider equity, diversity and inclusion when constituting the panel, and may seek advice from the Pro Vice Chancellor (Research), Director of Research & Impact Services, or other senior colleagues on nominations for appropriate panel members.

The Full Investigation Panel (including the Chair) should consist of at least three, and always an uneven number of, senior members of the University / external members, with relevant skills and experience, and should be supported by a Secretary. At least one of the Panel should be from outside the University. At least one of the Panel should be an academic specialist in the research area within which the misconduct has alleged to have taken place, bearing in mind any potential or actual conflict of interests.

At this stage, before the Full Investigation commences, both Respondent and Initiator may raise with the Named Person concerns they may have about the membership of the full investigation panel but neither have the right of veto over those nominated.

3.3. Operation of the Investigation

The Full Investigation Panel will:

receive all relevant information and evidence from the Preliminary Assessment as background to the Full Investigation;
maintain a record of evidence sought and received, and conclusions reached;
conduct a thorough assessment of the evidence;
hear the Initiator and such other individuals as the Panel consider relevant to the investigation;
hear the Respondent’s response to the allegations made. The Respondent will be allowed to set out their case and submit their evidence for consideration by the Panel beforehand;
if appropriate, contact relevant witnesses suggested by the Initiator or Respondent to gather further evidence;
if required, seek guidance from subject matter experts and / or external Advisors such as UKRIO and / or to seek legal advice if necessary;
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” - this means that the activity was more likely than not to have occurred;
provide a draft report to the Named Person.

3.4. Determination of the Investigation

The Full Investigation Panel should determine whether the allegation(s) of research misconduct:

are upheld in full;
are upheld in part;
have some substance but due to the relatively minor nature of the allegation(s) or because they relate to poor research practice rather than to research misconduct, will be addressed through informal measures;
should be handled under another process;
are not upheld and will be dismissed, due to being mistaken or frivolous or otherwise without substance;
are not upheld and will be dismissed, due to being vexatious and/or malicious.

A majority decision is acceptable, although a unanimous decision is desirable.

3.5. Communication of the Findings and Reporting

The Full Investigation Panel’s draft report will be made available to the Initiator and Respondent for them to comment on the factual accuracy of the report. Changes will only be made to the report where there are errors of fact, and the Chair should seek the agreement of the majority of the Panel before making amendments of substance to the Panel’s report.

The Final Report will include the conclusions of the Full investigation Panel and make recommendations for further action, as follows:

summarise the conduct of the investigation;
state whether the allegations of research misconduct have been upheld in whole or in part, or are unfounded, giving reasons for the Panel’s decision and recording any differing views;
state whether the allegations should be referred to the University’s disciplinary process or another relevant process;
make recommendations in relation to any matters relating to any other misconduct identified during the investigations;
recommend whether any action will be required to correct the record of research;
recommend whether research participants and / or other involved parties need to be informed;
address any procedural matters that the investigation has brought to light within the University;
recommend whether any other organisational matters should be addressed by the University though a review of the management of research;
recommend other matters that should be investigated.

The Chair will then send the final report to the Named Person, Initiator and Respondent (including their representatives, by agreement), and inform all relevant parties of the reasons for reaching the conclusions in the final report.

The Named Person will inform the following of the conclusion of the Full Investigation:

appropriate senior officers of the University;
where appropriate, the responsible person within any relevant partner organisations, funding bodies and/or regulatory or professional bodies.

The report may be used in evidence by the University's disciplinary procedures, by subsequent investigations under this Procedure, and by other institutional processes. In addition, subject to data protection considerations, it may be released, in full or in part or summary form, in reporting the matter to any appropriate external organisation.

A copy of the report and any documentation used in the enquiry should be held by the University for a period of at least 10 years.

3.6. Follow up actions

When allegations of research misconduct are 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.

Where it is determined that the Respondent should undertake further education, training and / or other actions, next steps with timeframes should be agreed with the Respondent in writing. If the Respondent does not follow through with the agreed next steps, referral to a disciplinary process may be considered (for staff) or to the Conduct and Resolution process (for students).

Where allegations have not been upheld (in full or in part), and the allegations are found to be mistaken, frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious, the Named Person will take such steps as are appropriate, given the seriousness of the allegations, to support the reputation of the Respondent and any relevant research project(s). The Named Person should consider recommending that action be taken against anyone who is found to have made vexatious and/or malicious allegations.

If allegations are made in good faith and are not vexatious and/or malicious, support will be offered to the Initiator to guard against any negative consequences as far as possible.

3.7. Timing

The Full Investigation Panel should be appointed within 30 working days of the conclusion of the Preliminary Assessment. The Full Investigation Panel must conduct a thorough assessment of the case, conduct its investigation, and reach its conclusions as quickly as possible, but not necessarily within a prescribed timescale. The timescale will be dependent on the number and complexity of the allegations under investigation. Expected timelines should be explained to all parties in writing.

4. Appeals Stage

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.

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

New evidence becoming available, which either party had a good reason for being unable to present to the Investigator / the Full Investigation Panel at the time of the assessment / investigation, which may make a material difference to the outcome.
Material irregularity or failure in procedure in the conduct of the investigation up to and before the Appeal Panel that could have had a material impact on the outcome.

The appeals process will be managed by a senior officer of the University, such as the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) or an individual nominated by them. This should be an alternative designated individual who has not been involved in the matter previously.

4.1. Initial Stage

Any appeal should be made in writing to the Alternative Named Person setting out the grounds of appeal, and be accompanied, wherever possible, by supporting documentation.

The Alternative Named Person will then assess the appeal to determine whether it falls within one or more of the grounds for appeal set out above, seeking clarification from the person(s) submitting the appeal as necessary.

If the appeal does not fall within one or more of the grounds for appeal set out above, then the appeal is dismissed, and this decision should be communicated to the person who submitted the appeal.

If the appeal falls within the grounds for appeal ‘New evidence becoming available’, then the Investigator will be consulted / the Full Investigation Panel will be reconvened to decide if the new evidence will materially impact the findings of the Preliminary Assessment / Full Investigation.

If the appeal falls within the grounds for appeal ‘Material irregularity or failure in procedure’, then the Alternative Named Person shall appoint an Appeals Panel to undertake the appeals process.

4.2. Appeals Panel

The Appeals Panel should consist of at least three, and always an uneven number of, senior members of the University, with relevant skills and experience, and should be supported by a Secretary. The Alternative Named Person will select one of the members of the Appeals Panel to act as its Chair. No individual involved in the Appeals Panel should have been involved at any stage previously. At least one of the Panel should be from outside the University. At least one of the Panel should be an academic specialist in the research area within which the misconduct has alleged to have taken place, bearing in mind any potential or actual conflict of interests.

Both the Respondent and Initiator may raise with the Alternative Named Person concerns that they may have about those chosen to carry out the Appeals stage but neither has a right of veto over those nominated.

The Chair and Secretary are responsible for keeping a full record of the work of the Appeals Panel.

4.3. Determination of the Appeal

The Appeals Panel will review the conduct of the investigation and any evidence submitted in support of the appeal in question, rather than carry out a re-investigation of the allegation in question.

When making any decisions, the Appeals Panel will do so by reaching a consensus. The Appeals Panel will decide whether it upholds the appeal and if so, what further action should be taken. The decision of the Appeals Panel is final.

4.4. Communication of the Findings

The Appeals Panel shall write a report setting out its conclusions and giving the reasons for its decision. A summary of the conclusions will be sent to the Initiator and the Respondent.

The Alternative Named Person will then undertake the actions necessary to implement the conclusions of the Appeals Panel.

4.5. Timing

An appeal should be submitted in writing within 20 working days of being notified of the outcome of the investigation.

Any appeal should normally be heard within two months of the outcome of the investigation.