Research Misconduct Policy

Introduction

1. The UK Concordat for Researcher Integrity characterises Research misconduct 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. It can cause harm to people and the environment, wastes resources, undermines the research record and damages the credibility of research.”

2. As a community of scholars, in which truthfulness and integrity are fundamental, Northeastern University London (the University) must have robust procedures for the inquiry and investigation of allegations of misconduct of research, with due care to protect the rights of those making the allegations, those accused, and the University. Furthermore, UK regulations require the University to have explicit procedures for addressing incidents in which there are allegations of misconduct in research.

Purpose

3. The University promotes a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and will deal with possible misconduct forthrightly. Accordingly, the University requires that allegations of research misconduct be reported promptly and will act promptly to address such allegations. As such, this Policy sets out:
   1. Clear guidance for staff, affiliates and students on what constitutes research misconduct.
   2. Clear guidance on how to report alleged misconduct.
   3. The institutional responsibility for managing allegations of research misconduct.
   4. Part of the contract of employment of University staff, and the contract of admission for students at the University.

Scope

4. This Policy and accompanying procedures apply to all University employees, affiliates and students involved in scholarship, research, research training, or research-related activities conducted under the auspices of the University.
5. This Policy and the accompanying procedures apply to research activities in their broadest form, including enterprise and innovation, consultancy, the application of research, knowledge exchange and public engagement.
6. This Policy and the accompanying procedures apply to individuals who no longer work for the University, insofar as they may be used to determine whether the individual committed research misconduct while employed at the University, and may also be used to determine whether an individual alleged to have committed research misconduct prior to his or her employment at the University did so, and whether any sanction or alteration in the individual’s status at the University is warranted.
7. This Policy and associated procedures will also be used to investigate any allegation of research misconduct initially raised through the University’s Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) Policy.
8. This Policy does not apply to instances of fraudulent activity or sexual harassment, or discrimination, which can be found in the University’s policies on Fraud Prevention and Response and Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct.
9. Honest errors and differences in, for example, research methodology or interpretations do not constitute research misconduct.
10. It is intended that any action carried out in terms of this procedure will be sufficient to comply with the investigation stages required by the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy.

Definitions

11. Research: a systematic investigation, including research, development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalisable knowledge. Activities which meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this Policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a programme which is considered research for other purposes.
12. Research Misconduct can take many forms. The practices listed below will automatically be deemed to constitute research misconduct. The list of practices is not an exhaustive list and does not preclude the University from taking action where other forms of research misconduct are identified.
    1. 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.
    2. Falsification: inappropriately manipulating and/or selecting research processes, materials, equipment, data, imagery and/or consents.
    3. Plagiarism: using other people’s ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise) without acknowledgement or permission.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct:
       1. Failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistle-blowers.
       2. Failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct accepted as a condition of funding.
       3. Inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements.
13. Complainant: a person making allegations of misconduct of research against one or more Respondents. A Complainant need not be a member of the University.
14. Respondent: the person against whom allegations of misconduct in research have been made.
15. Named Person: The individual nominated by the University 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.

Procedure

Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

16. For ease of reference, the procedures detailed in this section are summarised in the flowchart in Annex A.
17. All allegations of research misconduct must be reported promptly, in writing, to the Director of Research Services.
18. Individuals involved in carrying out the investigation procedure must at all times bear in mind the five principles of misconduct investigations as defined by the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) Misconduct Policy (pages 45-51): Fairness, Confidentiality, Integrity, Prevention of Detriment, and Balance.
19. Throughout all stages of investigation, all possible steps will be taken to protect the confidentiality of the person(s) making the allegation of research misconduct (the Complainant(s)) and of the researcher(s) against whom an allegation of research misconduct has been made (the ‘Respondent(s)). The identity of the Complainant(s) or the Respondent(s) will not be made known to any third party unless it is deemed necessary in order to carry out the investigation. The decision as to whether the identities of the Complainant(s) and/or the Respondent(s) need to be known more widely will be taken by the Research Misconduct Panel. Any disclosure to a third party of the identity of Complainant(s) or Respondent(s), or of any other investigation details, should be made on a confidential basis. Breaching this may lead to disciplinary action.
20. Reasonable steps must also be taken to ensure that no involved party suffers detriment due to unconfirmed or unproven allegations. Individuals who are handling a concern about research conduct should communicate the relevant information to HR, who will offer support to Respondent(s), Complainant(s), and other parties, as required.

Preliminary Inquiry into the Allegations

21. If the allegations are of a serious nature (as determined by the Director of Research Services), formal steps should be implemented immediately. Otherwise, an informal inquiry should be conducted by the Director of Research Services.
22. Where a case is resolved informally by the Director of Research Services, details of the case should be recorded in their logbook, which is then reviewed annually by the Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange (who is referred to as the Named Person in the rest of this document) or by a nominated senior University leader in the Named Person’s absence.
23. If informal resolution is not possible, the allegation of misconduct  is passed on to the Named Person. After receiving an allegation, the Named Person will initiate a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. During the inquiry, the investigator will:
    1. Protect the privacy of those who in good faith report apparent misconduct, to the maximum extent possible.
    2. Conduct the investigation with the presumption of innocence and with sensitivity and confidentiality.
    3. Provide the Respondent with a written report summarising the inquiry.
    4. Provide the Respondent the opportunity to comment on the allegations, to submit documentation, and to have Trade Union and/or other representation present.
    5. Take reasonable steps to ensure that the investigation is independent and avoids any potential conflicts of interest.
    6. Ensure that the investigation is well documented and occurs over a reasonable time frame.

Formal Investigation of Alleged Misconduct

24. To initiate a formal investigation, the Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange appoints a Research Misconduct Panel (Panel), consisting of those who are deemed to have no conflict of interest in the case and have the required expertise to assess the research concern. Senior staff appointed to the Panel are expected to disclose any factors that prevent them serving fairly, objectively, and without bias.
25. The Panel consists of at least one senior member from the relevant Faculty and two other members, either from elsewhere in the University or external members. The Named Person appoints an ‘Investigator’ and a Chair of the Panel.
26. The Research Misconduct Panel will make every effort to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings and protect the privacy of all persons involved in the investigation.

Appeals

27. An appeals process is accessible to the Respondent or Complainant for them to appeal in certain circumstances against the findings of any investigation carried out under this procedure.
28. Appeals are managed by an individual other than the Named Person. An alternative designated individual who has not been involved in the matter previously (referred to as the Alternative Named Person in the rest of this document) establishes an Research Misconduct Appeal Board (RMAB). At least one member of the RMAB must be from outside the University.
29. Appeals may be permitted on any or all of the following grounds:
    1. The procedure set out in this Policy not being followed, leading to a potential material impact on the outcome.
    2. Fresh evidence becoming available, which was not available to the Investigator and/or the Panel.
    3. Evidence of unfairness or bias in the process or decisions taken by the Named Person, Investigator or Panel.
    4. The recommendations made as part of an outcome of the procedure, or subsequent actions taken, are either excessive or inadequate concerning the misconduct found by the investigation.
30. Any appeal shall be made via the Appeal Form for Students (where the appellant is a student) or via email (where the appellant is not a student) to the Alternative Named Person within 14 calendar days of being notified of the outcome of the Procedure. The written notice of appeal shall set out the grounds of appeal, and any supporting documentation should be included where possible.
31. Any appeal should normally be heard within two months of the outcome of the investigation. Any delays to this timescale are explained in writing to those involved , presenting an estimated revised date of completion.
32. The RMAB will decide whether it upholds, reverses or modifies the outcome of the original investigation, including the decisions and/or recommendations associated with it. The decision of the RMAB is final.
33. The RMAB shall write a report setting out its conclusions, giving the reasons for its decision and recording any differing views. A summary of this report is sent to the Complainant and the Respondent.

Outcomes

34. The outcomes and reporting stage ensures that all necessary actions are taken upon conclusion of the informal or formal investigation procedures.
35. The Named Person working with the Director of Research Services, and with others as necessary, are responsible for taking any further action 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:
    1. Whether, following the conclusion of the operation of this procedure, the matter should be referred to the University’s relevant disciplinary procedure: Disciplinary Procedure for Students or Disciplinary Procedure for Staff.
    2. Whether, following the conclusion of the operation of this procedure, the matter should be referred to another relevant University process, e.g., Academic Misconduct Policy.
    3. Who else should be notified of the findings of the investigation, both internally and externally e.g., line management, HR, statutory regulators or funding bodies.
    4. 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.
    5. Informing research participants.
    6. Whether procedural or organisational matters should be addressed by the University through a review of the management of research and other measures as appropriate.
    7. Communication of anonymised summary data on uses of this procedure within a specific period. This includes the reporting required in the annual statement on research integrity required under The Concordat to support Research Integrity, reports to the Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee within the University, and dissemination of anonymised learning points within the University as appropriate.

Additional Information

36. The University will undertake diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputation of the person(s) alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed.
37. The University will take appropriate action against individuals if there is evidence of retaliation against the Complainant(s) or if there is evidence that the Complainant made the allegations in bad faith.
38. Consequences for violations of this Policy, and related laws or regulations, can include disciplinary action, up to and including termination; termination of a funded project and/or loss of funding; and/or criminal actions, fines, and penalties.
39. The University’s Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) Policy must be adhered to regarding accusations of research misconduct.

Contact Information

40. All research integrity enquiries by employees, associates and/or students must be made to Research Services.
41. All cases of potential research misconduct must be declared immediately to Research Services.

Reporting, Monitoring and Reviewing

42. All cases of research misconduct will be declared to the Executive Committee (ExCo) and will be stated on the University’s annual research integrity statement, published on the University’s website.

Version History

Annex A: Research Misconduct Procedural Flowchart