Cardiff University Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research

Final – August 2015

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH

1INTRODUCTION

1.1The University expects all members of staff of the University involved in research activities to observe the highest standards of professional behaviour, rigour and integrity in proposing, conducting and publishing research. It is the responsibility of researchers to be aware of their commitments and the expectations of the University in this regard, as outlined in the Research Integrity and Governance Code of Practice[1]or equivalent framework. Researchers should also comply with the expectations and requirements of funding and regulatory bodies, Sponsors and relevant legislation.

1.2Cardiff University takes seriously any allegation of research misconduct and has produced this procedure to deal with such allegations in line with the principles of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity[2] and guidance issued by the UK Research Integrity Office[3]. These procedures outline the action to be taken when an allegation of misconduct in academic research is brought against any present or past member of staff of the University, including visiting academics, in respect of research undertaken while employed by or at the University.[4]

1.3This Procedure may be used to raise concerns by current or former members of staff or students, and by third parties external to the University, such as research participants, research funding bodies, journal editors and members of the public, including patients and research participants.

1.4Any allegations should be submitted in writing (email or fax is acceptable for this purpose). This Procedure asks persons to put their name to any allegations they make. Allegations which are anonymous or where there is no specific Complainant will only be considered at the discretion of the University, taking into account: the seriousness of the concerns raised; the credibility of the concerns; and the likelihood of confirming the concerns from alternative and credible sources.

1.5In the case of staff with honorary contracts with either the University or the NHS, which organisation should take the lead in investigating an allegation would depend on the circumstances. Close liaison with the partner organisation would be essential.

1.6In the case of allegations being made about a postgraduate student who is also an employee, the Named Person shall determine which procedure shall apply, according to the circumstances of the case.

1.7If an individual has good reason to suspect any misconduct in research, he/she should make available such information with any supporting evidence, as prescribed below. In doing so he/she should bear in mind that an allegation of academic impropriety is serious and potentially defamatory, and could lead to the threat (or even the instigation) of legal proceedings and, in the case of a malicious allegation, disciplinary action. It is in that context that this procedure contains provision for a preliminary screening of allegations and supporting evidence and lays stress on principles of confidentiality and natural justice.

1.8If a member of the University comes forward to admit that he/she has committed research misconduct, it will be for the Named Person to decide, in consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research, the Head of Human Resources and the relevant Head of College or School, whether this Procedure or another University procedure, such as the disciplinary procedure, will be followed. In the case of a student, the Academic Registrar will be consulted.

2DEFINITIONS

Complainant: The person making the allegation. This need not be a member of the University.

Days: Within this Procedure, ‘days’ means ‘working days’ and excludes weekends, Bank Holidays and other days on which the University is closed.

Named Person: This is the person nominated by the University to:

• receive any allegations of research misconduct
• initiate and supervise the Procedure for investigating allegations, ensuring the integrity of the proceedings
• maintain a record and preserve documentation relating to an investigation
• report on the outcome of investigations to relevant parties
• take decisions at key stages of the Procedure
• seek legal or other external advice at any stage or on any aspect of the proceedings, as appropriate
• delegate to another senior officer part or all of his/her responsibilities as the Named Person, as appropriate

The Chief Operating Officer, or nominee, shall be the Named Person.

Research misconduct: in this context, the term “misconduct in academic research” means practices that seriously deviate from those that are generally accepted within the academic and scientific communities for proposing, conducting or reporting research. It specifically encompasses, but is not limited to, the following:

• Fabrication - includes the creation of false data or other aspects of research, including documentation and participant consent.
• Falsification - includes the inappropriate manipulation and/or selection of data, imagery and/or consents.
• Plagiarism - includes the general misappropriation or use of others’ ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise), without acknowledgement or permission.
• Misrepresentation - of data, interests and/or involvement. Also includes misrepresentation of qualifications and/or experience, including claiming or implying qualifications or experience which are not held.
• Mismanagement or inadequate preservation of data and/or primary materials – non-compliance with University and/or funders’ requirements for the management or preservation of data and/or primary material.
• Failure to follow accepted procedures or to exercise due care in carrying out responsibilities for:
• avoiding unreasonable risk or harm to humans, animals used in research, and/or the environment
• the proper handling of privileged or private information on individuals collected during the research
• Non-compliance with any relevant legislation in force at the time [eg Human Tissue Act requirements].

Research Misconduct includes acts of omission as well as commission. The standards should be those prevailing in the country in question and at the date that the alleged behaviour took place.

Research misconduct does not include differences in the design, execution, interpretation or judgement in evaluating research methods or results or misconduct (including gross misconduct) unrelated to the research process. Similarly, it does not include what is no more than academically poor research.

Allegations of financial irregularity or fraud shall be dealt with in accordance with the University’s Financial Regulations.

Respondent: The person or persons against whom the allegation is made shall be described as the Respondent[5].

3PRINCIPLES

3.1Since misconduct in research is a serious matter both for the University and the individual, the operation of these Procedures by the University shall accord with the following:

.1All allegations of misconduct in research shall be treated seriously and their substance investigated fairly and with integrity and sensitivity.

.2The University seeks to ensure that no-one making an allegation of misconduct in research in good faith is victimised for having made the allegation.

3.2In all enquiries and in any action taken as a result of their outcome, due regard shall be given to the need:

.1to protect researchers against malicious, frivolous or ill-founded allegations of misconduct in research;

.2to protect the position and reputation of those alleged to have engaged in misconduct in research when such an allegation is not confirmed;

.3to protect the position and reputation of those who make allegations of misconduct in research in good faith, i.e. in the reasonable belief on the basis of any supporting evidence that misconduct in research may have occurred;

.4to observe the principle of no-detriment such that neither the person making the allegation of misconduct in research nor the person against whom such an allegation is made should suffer solely as a consequence of the fact that a good faith allegation has been made.

3.3Accordingly:

.1all enquiries (including any formal investigation) shall, in so far as is reasonably practicable, be conducted on the basis of confidentiality, but without compromising health and safety or the appropriate, full and fair investigation of the allegation of misconduct in research;

.2the University shall throughout its enquiries and any formal investigation take all reasonable measures to preserve the anonymity of the Respondent and (unless permission is given otherwise) the Complainant, unless this would compromise the investigation;

.3should the Complainant make the allegation public at any point during the course of the Procedure, he/she will have been deemed to have foregone the right to be treated as a Complainant under this Procedure. However, this will not in itself lead to a suspension of the Procedure;

.4the principles of natural justice shall be observed, that is to say the Respondent shall be fully informed about what he or she has to answer and shall have the fullest opportunity to reply. The Respondent may be helped and accompanied by a person of his or her choice [including his/her lawyer], at any stage of these procedures.

.5A Respondent who intends to be accompanied and/or represented is required to inform the Named Person in writing in advance and must state whether or not the person accompanying him/her has legal qualifications.

3.4In the event that the Complainant withdraws the allegation or the Respondent resigns from the University or admits the charge at any point in the Procedure, this will not in itself lead to the suspension of the Procedure.

3.5If the Respondent resigns during the Procedure, or is unwilling to co-operate, but serious concerns remain that misconduct may have taken place, the Respondent should be informed that the investigation will continue. Should the Respondent be unwilling to co-operate further with the investigation, he/she should be informed that the details of the outstanding case may, without prejudice, be communicated to a current or future employer or to any appropriate regulatory or professional supervisory body.

3.6Similarly, if the Respondent is no longer employed by the University and is not available, contactable or is unwilling to co-operate, the University reserves the right to conduct an investigation into the concerns raised by the Complainant as far as is practicable.

3.7All parties involved in this Procedure are expected to raise any potential conflicts of interest with the Named Person or alternate, as appropriate.

3.8The University reserves the right to substitute any officers within the Procedure as necessary. No officer shall be substituted by any person who is connected with or has any interest in the allegation or investigation.

4PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGATION

4.1Any allegation of misconduct in academic research shall be made to the Named Person. If such an allegation is made to another member of staff of the University it must be forwarded to the Named Person without delay.

4.2While the initial allegation need not be in writing, in order for the allegation to be taken forward, the Complainant must confirm the allegation in writing or by email, together with any supporting documentation. Allegations which are anonymous or where there is no specific Complainant will only be considered at the discretion of the University, taking into account: the seriousness of the concerns raised; the credibility of the concerns; and the likelihood of confirming the concerns from alternative and credible sources.

4.3Upon receipt of a written allegation the Named Person shall, in consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor Research, conduct a preliminary review of the allegation. In order to reach a decision, the Named Person may seek the advice of an internal expert on the seriousness and credibility of the concerns. The Named Person shall, normally within 20 days, either:

.1dismiss the allegation as clearly frivolous, vexatious or malicious or lacking substance;

.2where an allegation does not fall under the definition of research misconduct, the Named Person may choose to initiate an appropriate University procedure to address the allegation or inform an appropriate external body, such as a statutory regulator or a professional body;

.3where an allegation does not fall within the jurisdiction of the University to address, the Named Person will inform the Complainant in writing of the reasons why the allegation cannot be investigated under this Procedure and which external body or other means might be appropriate for handling the allegation (if there is one);

.4institute a Screening Process. This would involve the appointment of a Screening Panel[6], comprising between one and three academic staff members with appropriate expertise and knowledge from across the University to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence. If there is more than one member of the Panel, one of the members shall be appointed as Chair of the Panel.

If the Screening Process is instituted, the Named Person shall appoint an individual to provide administrative/secretarial support to the Panel.

The Respondent(s), the Complainant and the relevant Head of School and Head of College shall be notified of the outcome of the preliminary review in accordance with 4.5 and 4.6 below.

4.4Other considerations at this point

Parallel to the process at 4.3 above, the Named Person may take the following steps:

.1The nature of the allegation may mean that it is necessary to inform legal or regulatory authorities when the activity is potentially or actually illegal and/or a danger to persons, animals or the environment.

.2The Head of the Research and Innovation Services should be informed of the receipt of the allegation so that the relevant funding bodies can be contacted if appropriate and required;

.3There may also be circumstances where, if the allegation involves behaviour that is subject to the University’s Disciplinary Process, the Named Person would need to consult with the Head of Human Resources[7] as to the process to be followed.

.4The Named Person must take any necessary steps to ensure the safeguarding of any potential evidence [records and materials] in respect of the allegation. If there is a perceived risk to persons, animals or the environment or the risk of destruction of evidence, this may involve requesting the temporary suspension of the Respondent and/or barring the Respondent from part or all of the University premises.

.5The reasons for such action must be recorded in writing and communicated to the Respondent. He/she should be assured that this is not part of any disciplinary action and does not indicate that the University believes the allegations to be true, more that it is essential to ensure that the allegations can be properly investigated.

.6Any suspension of the Respondent should be regularly reviewed to ensure that it is not unnecessarily protracted.

4.5The Named Person shall normally invite the Respondent to a confidential meeting, to be attended by a representative of Human Resources Department, at which the Respondent will be informed

(i)that an allegation has been received

(ii)of the outcome of the Preliminary Consideration Stage. If a Screening Panel has been established, the Respondent shall be supplied with details of the Panellists

(iii)of any action to be taken under 4.4 above.

The Respondent will be given a copy of the allegation in writing and a copy of the Procedure for information. He/she will be invited to submit a written response to the allegations, to be received by the Named Person within 10 days of the notification (subject to special circumstances).

The anonymity of the Complainant will be maintained at this stage unless the allegation has been deemed to be vexatious or malicious.

4.6At the same time, the Named Person shall notify the Respondent’s Head of School and the Head of College and the Complainant of the outcome of the Preliminary Review Stage. If a Screening Panel is appointed, the name(s) of the Panellist (s) shall be notified.

5SCREENING STAGE

5.1The Screening Panel shall comprise up to three individuals with relevant expertise and academic standing from within the University to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence. If the Panel has more than one member, one of the members shall be appointed as Chair of the Panel;

5.2Each member shall be asked to confirm in writing that there is no conflict of interest in their appointment to the Screening Panel.

5.3Screening shall normally be completed within 30 days of appointment of the Screening Panel, unless circumstances warrant a longer period (such reasons shall be documented in the written record of the Screening Panel’s conduct) and notified to all parties.

5.4The Screening Panel shall, in confidence:

.1consider all relevant material relating to the allegation and may invite the Complainant to clarify any matters that the Screening Panel consider necessary and relevant;

.2consider the Respondent’s response and evidence, and seek further clarification if required.

5.5The Screening Panel shall decide upon one of the following five courses of action.

.1the allegation is considered to be unfounded, either because it is mistaken, frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise without substance, in which case the Panel shall dismiss it.

.2the allegations considered to be malicious in which case the Panel shall dismiss it and so inform the Named Person.

.3it may be considered that there is insufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case. In these circumstances the allegation shall be dismissed .

.4it may be considered that there is some substance in the allegation but that the matter does not warrant a formal investigation, in which event the Panel may recommend whatever course of action is required to put the matter right in so far as is possible, in consultation with the relevant Head of School. This might include mediation/dispute resolution. The Head of School should keep a record of any actions taken and keep the Named Person informed of progress.

.5it may be considered that either the allegation does not fall under the research misconduct procedure but may warrant referral to another University process, such as the disciplinary procedure, or the allegation may be deemed to fall outside the University’s jurisdiction and should be referred to an external body such as a statutory regulator or professional body. If the Panel are considering such a course of action, the advice of the Named Person should be canvassed.

.6It may be considered that there is sufficient substance in the allegation of misconduct in research to instigate a formal investigation of the allegation.

5.6The Screening Panel shall make a confidential written report of its evaluation and decision and shall lodge it with the Named Person together with any documentation used in the investigation.

5.7The Named Person shall:

.1notify both the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the Screening Panel’s decision, enclosing a summary of the Screening Panel’s findings;

.2 notify the Respondent’s Head of School, Head of College and the Pro Vice-Chancellor Research of the Screening Panel’s decision, enclosing a summary of the Screening Panel findings;

.3ensure that any administrative actions that may be immediately necessary to protect the funds and/or other interests of relevant grant- or contract-awarding bodies, and to meet all contractual commitments, are taken by the appropriate officer(s);