The University of Sheffield
Human Resources

Investigating and Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

A. Policy and Guiding Principles

1. Policy

The University expects all research undertaken on University premises or using University facilities, to be conducted observing the highest standards of research practice. It is expected that members of the University and those working on University premises take steps to acquaint themselves with the University's Guidelines on Good Research Practice, issued by the Research Office, and any other discipline specific relevant guidance.

The procedure below relates solely to an allegation of research misconduct against University staff. Other procedures are available for individuals to raise and resolve issues of different concern, for example, the Policy and Procedure on Public Interest Disclosure, the procedure for reporting financial irregularities within the Financial Directives and the Grievance and Disciplinary procedures.

The aim of the procedure is to provide a flexible framework for an effective and sensitive response to allegations raised in a wide range of circumstances. It is recognised that it may be necessary in some specific research fields for local protocols to be developed and disseminated, for example in areas where research involves humans, other living organisms or the environment. Local protocols should follow the framework of this University-wide Policy and Procedure and advice should be sought from the Department of Human Resources.

2. Guiding Principles

2.1 Definition of Research Misconduct

The University has adopted the following, non-exhaustive, definition which is based on guidance issued by the Wellcome Trust:

"The fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting results of research or deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviations from accepted practices in carrying out research. It includes failure to follow established protocols or adhere to established ethical principles if this failure results in unreasonable risk or harm to humans, other living organisms or the environment and facilitating of misconduct in research by collusion in, or concealment of, such actions by others. It includes intentional, unauthorised use, disclosure or removal of, or damage to, research-related property of another, including apparatus, materials, writings, data, hardware or software or any other substances or devices used in or produced by the conduct of research. It also includes any plan or conspiracy or attempt to do any of the above."

It does not include honest error or honest differences in the design, execution, interpretation or judgment in evaluating research methods or results or misconduct unrelated to the research process. Similarly, it does not include poor research unless this encompasses the intention to deceive.

2.2 The Responsibilities of Staff

All members of University staff, including those holding honorary contracts, have an obligation to report, to the Designated Person, any incident of research misconduct, whether this has been witnessed or whether it is suspected. If a member of staff has witnessed or suspects research misconduct, they should access the Procedure for Investigating an Allegation of Research Misconduct against University Staff for guidance.

2.3 Confidentiality

All allegations made under this Procedure shall be treated in a confidential and sensitive manner. To ensure that any investigation is impartial and independent all parties involved in this procedure, including the Complainant and the Respondent, are bound by confidentiality, except in so far that disclosure is necessary in relation to the proceedings, for example, to witnesses, advisers and trade union representatives. As such, all other disclosures of any proceedings, for example to the media, is prohibited: breaches in confidentiality shall be considered as a serious disciplinary matter.

Individuals are required to put their name to any allegation they make. In exceptional circumstances, and at the discretion of the Designated Person, the identity of the person raising the matter may be kept confidential for as long as possible during the informal stage. The Designated Person shall take all relevant submissions into account.

In order to undertake a thorough and fair investigation, the identity of the Complainant shall be disclosed during any formal investigation.

2.4 Timescales

Investigations should be conducted as speedily as possible, and with this in mind indicative timescales have been set out. Dependent upon the nature and complexity of the allegation, adjustments to these timescales, as reasonably requested by the Panel Chair, or by the Complainant or Respondent via the Panel Chair, may be agreed by the Designated Person. Individuals involved are expected to cooperate fully to ensure a timely resolution to proceedings.

2.5 Representation

Both the Complainant and the Respondent may be accompanied to meetings throughout the formal procedure by a work colleague or trade union representative. Requests to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative 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.

2.6 Record Keeping

Full and accurate records shall be kept of the investigation in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act, 1998. Documentation shall be stored for a period of at least five years.

2.7 Outcomes of this Procedure

This procedure is not a disciplinary process. Dependent upon the outcome of any investigation under this procedure disciplinary proceedings may be initiated.

2.8 Unfounded Allegations and Preserving Reputation

Suspicions reported in confidence and in good faith, which are not confirmed by subsequent investigation, shall not lead to any action against the Complainant. The University shall take whatever reasonable steps are considered necessary, to preserve the reputation of the Respondent and to protect the Complainant from any victimisation.

However, individuals making an allegation which is found through subsequent investigation to be malicious and/or vexatious may be subject to disciplinary or other appropriate action.

2.9 External Referrals

In cases where an allegation concerns or implicates someone who is not a member of University staff, a Pro-Vice Chancellor or the Director of Human Resource Management shall consider whether the conclusions of the investigation should be brought to the attention of any other appropriate person/s or body.

Where the research is externally funded, in whole or in part, the Designated Person shall have regard to any guidance issued by the relevant funding body and shall ensure that the Director of any such body is given appropriate information at the earliest opportunity, normally following the conclusion of an investigation into a substantial allegation of research misconduct. Under exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to consult the relevant funding body during the formal investigation.

2.10 Equal Opportunities

This procedure shall be operated in accordance with existing University commitments and procedures on Equal Opportunities.

B. The Procedure for Investigating an Allegation of Research Misconduct against University Staff

1. Purpose of the Procedure

The purpose of this procedure is as follows:

  1. To enable individuals to raise legitimate concerns relating to research misconduct by staff within the course of their employment at the University.
  2. To provide a process for concerns to be raised, investigated and, where appropriate, acted upon in a fair and transparent manner and in confidence.
  3. To demonstrate that where staff believe it is necessary to make an allegation of research misconduct this will be taken seriously by the University, and in accordance with the Policy and Procedure on Public Interest Disclosure.
  4. To act as a deterrent to potential perpetrators of research misconduct.
  5. To ensure the confidence of all involved parties (Research Councils and other funding bodies, individuals making an allegation, students, staff etc.) that the University maintains the highest standards of research conduct.

2. Definitions

The Designated Person

The Designated Person shall normally be the Head of Department. Where there are large Schools as in the Faculty of Medicine, the 'Head of Department' shall be the Head of School. However, where the Complainant perceives there to be a valid reason why the Designated Person should not be the Head of Department, for example where the Head of Department is connected in any way to the research and/or complaint in question, the allegation may be forwarded to the relevant Director of Research, a cognate Head of Department or other senior office holder.

In all circumstances where an allegation is raised with a Designated Person who is not the Head of Department, the alternative designate should make the Head of Department aware of the allegation as soon as possible and appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Advice from the Department of Human Resources shall be sought in all cases.

Complainant

The 'Complainant' shall mean the person who submits an allegation of research misconduct.

Respondent

The `Respondent´ shall mean the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is made or the person whose actions are the subject of an inquiry or investigation into research misconduct.

3. Submission of an Allegation of Research Misconduct

To make a complaint of Research Misconduct, the Complainant should write to the Designated Person stating that they wish to instigate the Procedure for Investigating an Allegation of Research Misconduct against University Staff. Full written details should be given regarding the allegation, including confirmation of the Respondent and the exact nature of the complaint in relation to each Respondent, with evidence and any idenitifiable remedies sought, as appropriate. At the outset of the procedure the Complainant is required to provide all relevant information and evidence, and any further information requested by the Designated Person.

4. Stages of the Procedure

Please follow the flow chart of the procedure, which may be downloaded using the link on the right of this page.

Consideration of an allegation of Research Misconduct is divided into two stages. The first stage is an informal investigation and resolution of the complaint by the Designated Person. The second stage, if necessary, is a full and formal investigation of the allegation.

Stage 1: Informal Investigation and Resolution by the Designated Person

4.1 Upon receipt of a written allegation of research misconduct, the Designated Person, supported by HR, shall agree a reasonable period of time necessary to attempt to informally investigate and resolve the matter. This period of time shall normally be 4-6 weeks and should be communicated to the Complainant and Respondent.

4.2 Normally, it is in the best interests of all parties to discuss an allegation informally and the Designated Person shall attempt to informally investigate the allegation of research misconduct and reach resolution, contacting the Respondent and involving any other parties, as appropriate.

4.3 Requests to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative during the informal stage of the procedure, shall be considered, where they are likely to assist in the resolution of the case.

4.4 The Designated Person shall seek advice from the Department of Human Resources.

4.5 If attempts at informal resolution fail by the date set by the Designated Person then the matter would normally progress immediately to Stage 2.

At any time during Stage 1, the Designated Person, Complainant or Respondent may seek to initiate the formal investigation stage, (Stage 2) of this procedure, where they deem this is necessary.

Stage 2: Formal Investigation

4.6 If attempts at informal resolution are not feasible or have been exhausted within the agreed timeframe, the Designated Person shall contact both the Complainant and the Respondent to inform them that a formal investigation into the allegation of research misconduct is to take place.

4.7 Since the person conducting the investigation should not be the person who would ultimately take decisions based upon the outcomes of the investigation, the Designated Person shall not personally conduct the investigation and shall remain separate from it, in order to maintain impartiality and fairness in the investigative process.

4.8 The Designated Person shall convene a panel comprising a minimum of three senior academics. A Director or Deputy Director of Research should normally chair the Panel. To ensure impartiality, Panel members should not normally be from the same department(s)/School(s)as the Complainant or Respondent. The Panel members should possess the requisite knowledge, experience, and expertise to form a reasoned judgement on the matters raised in the complaint. Panel members should bring to the attention of the Designated Person any direct or potential conflict of interest in their involvement in the case. The Designated Person should, in consultation with the Complainant, set out the initial terms of reference to the Panel. The Panel will be fully serviced by the Department of Human Resources.

4.9 The Designated Person shall write to the Complainant and Respondent, normally within 14 days of invoking a formal investigation, to inform them of the Panel constitution and initial terms of reference.

4.10 The Complainant and Respondent shall be asked to confirm to the Designated Person that they do not perceive any conflict of interest with the proposed Panel members, within 7 days of them being informed. Concerns shall be expected to relate only to whether Panel members have any perceived conflicts of interest. Where concerns are raised, the decision of the Designated Person shall be final, with the Designated Person providing reasons to those concerned.

4.11 The Chair of the Panel shall ensure that the investigation is conducted with full consideration of the principles of natural justice.

4.12 The Panel shall determine its own detailed approach to the conduct of the investigation and will carry out a thorough evaluation of the evidence.

4.13 The original submission made by the Complainant and all accompanying evidence shall form the core evidence to be considered.

4.14 This core evidence shall be made available to Panel members, the Complainant and the Respondent.

4.15 The Respondent shall normally be asked to respond to the allegation in writing and this will be made available to the Panel members, the Complainant and the Respondent.

4.16 The process may also include, inter alia, examination of relevant research data, interviews and/or statements with the Complainant and Respondent. Both the Complainant and the Respondent may be accompanied to meetings by a work colleague or trade union representative.

4.17 The Panel has the right to call any other individuals as they see fit to assist with the investigation.

4.18 Evidence submitted by the Complainant or Respondent at later stages of the investigation may only be considered at the discretion of the Panel Chair.

Findings

4.19 The Panel shall normally reach a conclusion within two months of being appointed, unless there are valid reasons for an extension to this period. The Panel shall prepare a confidential report of its conclusions.

4.20 Possible conclusions, which are non-exhaustive, may be that:

  1. the evidence has proved that Research Misconduct has not taken place and the allegation is unfounded.
  2. there has been Research Misconduct of a minor nature which may be resolved through stated recommended action(s).
  3. there has been Research Misconduct of a serious nature and it is recommended that action is taken forward under relevant University procedures.
  4. there is insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion, setting out the reasoning for this and recommending any possible methods for closure.

4.21 The Panel shall send its confidential report to the Designated Person. The Designated Person, upon receipt of the Panel´s report and recommendations, shall decide upon appropriate action. The Designated Person shall meet with the Panel, as appropriate, to discuss the findings and advise the Panel of the proposed course of action. The Designated Person shall dispatch copies of this report to both the Complainant and the Respondent and to the Head of Department where they are not the Designated Person.

4.22 The Designated Person shall inform the Head of Department where they are not the Designated Person, the Panel, the Complainant and the Respondent of his/her decision and any intended action, in writing, normally within 14 days of receipt of the Panel´s report.

4.23 The decision of the Designated Person is final.

4.24 The outcomes of any such investigation shall be reported to the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar and Secretary.

4.25 Reporting of the allegations or findings of any investigation shall depend upon the nature of the allegation.

Implementation and Review

The Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure has been approved by the University´s Senate and Council, and has been agreed by the Campus Unions.

This procedure was last revised in July 2007, and shall be kept under regular review by the Department of Human Resources.