Policy

Code of policy and procedures for investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct in research

Policy outlining investigation of research misconduct allegations, from initial assessment to formal inquiry, appeal, and disciplinary action

Updated on 15 September 2026

Procedure for the Investigation of Concerns and Alleged Breaches of Research Integrity (The Procedure)

1. Purpose

The University of Dundee is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity and expects all research conducted under its auspices to be carried out with honesty, rigour, transparency and respect, in accordance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025). All researchers within the University have a duty to society, to their profession, to the University, to those funding their research and, in the case of clinical research, to their patients, to conduct their research in the most conscientious and responsible manner possible. All researchers, as defined in 2.1 of this policy are expected to be familiar with and comply with the University’s Code of Good Practice in Research (Annex 4), together with relevant guidelines and policies issued by the University Research Ethics and, where applicable, NHS committees.
The University has a duty to the research community, its funders and to the public to investigate alleged breaches of research integrity. Failure to do so effectively poses significant risk to the safety of those involved in research, as well as to the University's reputation, sustainability, and the integrity of its research findings and outcomes.
To fulfil this duty, the University has established robust and transparent arrangements for the handling and addressing concerns of alleged breaches of research integrity. The Procedure for the Investigation of Concerns and Alleged Breaches of Research Integrity (“the Procedure”) sets out a clear and consistent process for raising, assessing and investigating concerns, ensuring that matters are addressed in a fair, proportionate and timely manner. It supports the Code of Good Practice in Research, which provides guidance for staff and students on the standards, policies and practices required to maintain good research conduct.
This Procedure has been developed with reference to the UK Research Integrity Office Detailed Template Procedure for Investigating Breaches of Research Integrity (2025), supporting a consistent and recognised approach across the sector. It is also informed by the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025).
This Procedure operates alongside other relevant University policies and procedures. Where appropriate, matters arising from the investigation of alleged breaches of research integrity may be referred to, or considered under, other processes. These may include but are not limited to: Staff Disciplinary Procedures, Student Disciplinary or Academic Misconduct procedures, Fraud Prevention and Investigation Policy, the University’s Whistleblowing Policy and Dignity at Work and Study Policy (harassment and bullying).

2. Scope

This Procedure applies to any person conducting research under the auspices of the University whether solely or in conjunction with others in the University, or with other organisations including but not limited to:
1. a member of staff or former member of staff;
2. a research student or former research student (including visiting students registered elsewhere who are conducting research at the Organisation);
3. an independent contractor or consultant;
4. a person with visiting or emeritus status; and
5. a member of staff on a joint clinical or honorary contract.
This Procedure recognises that concerns about potential breaches of research integrity may be complex and must be handled fairly and proportionately. It sets out how such concerns relating to research conducted under the auspices of the University will be considered and investigated. The Procedure is not a disciplinary or legal process, in its own right, but its findings may inform subsequent disciplinary action.
Where an investigation identifies misconduct, the University may take appropriate action in accordance with its staff or student disciplinary procedures, or other relevant processes. This may include dismissal in the case of staff, termination of programme in the case of registered students, or, where appropriate, rescission of an award. Reports arising from this Procedure may be used to inform such processes and, where necessary, may be shared with relevant external bodies.
The University will apply this Procedure where the individual(s) concerned has left, or leaves, the University’s jurisdiction prior to or during the investigation. Any further action arising from the investigation and its outcomes will be determined by the University on a case-by-case basis.
Allegations of breaches of research integrity made to the University, including but not limited to research misconduct, can only be investigated via this Procedure. Where an allegation of potential misconduct is raised under the University’s Code on Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing), the allegation will be referred to this Procedure.
1. When concerns are raised that include/relate to alleged bullying or harassment, the University will determine whether they are investigated using this Procedure or the University’s Dignity at Work and Study Policy (harassment and bullying) or other disciplinary processes.
Allegations of financial fraud or other misuses of research funds or research equipment may be addressed under the University’s Code on Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) framework which provides staff with detailed guidance on how to raise concerns about fraud or other malpractice.
Complaints submitted under the University’s Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP) may also be referred for Investigation under this Procedure.
1. This Procedure will apply to research students who are registered for an MRes, MPhil, MD, PhD or a Professional Doctorate, but not normally to undergraduate or taught postgraduate students. Concerns raised relating specifically to the assessed element of their research (including but not limited to Progress Reviews, Thesis and Oral examination) will be dealt with under the Academic misconduct by students code of practice. Concerns involving research students, even if raised within an assessment process might fall under this Procedure.
Taught student misconduct is normally dealt with by the Academic misconduct by students code of practice, although in exceptional circumstances where concerns relating to research are raised, this Procedure may be used.
Misconduct in research includes acts of omission, as well as acts of commission. As well as complying with accepted procedures, researchers must comply with all legislation that applies to the conduct of research. The standards by which concerns of misconduct in research should be judged should be those prevailing at the date that the behaviour under investigation took place.
Misconduct in research does not include unintentional error or professional differences in interpretation or judgement of data.

3. Principles

This Procedure will be carried out in accordance with the Principles of Fairness, Confidentiality, Integrity and Prevention of Detriment, as set out in Annex 1, and the Standards set out in Annex 2. Those responsible for carrying out this Procedure must ensure they are familiar with these Principles and Standards.

4. Definitions

Concerns raised - Informal or formal reporting to the University that a breach of research integrity may have taken place.
Breach of Research Integrity – when the conduct of research falls short of standards of research integrity, whether due to error, questionable research practices (QRPs), or research misconduct.
Definition of Misconduct in Research All researchers within the University of Dundee are expected to observe high standards of professional behaviour in the design, conduct, review, and reporting of research. Research misconduct constitutes behaviours and deliberate actions that fall short of the principles set out in Commitment 1 of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025), occurring at any stage of the research lifecycle. This includes activities associated with the ideation and development of research proposals, the conduct and management of research, the peer review of others’ work, and the reporting and publication of research findings. Any such conduct represents a breach of the University’s ethical standards and policies and may render the individual liable to the University’s disciplinary procedures.

Research misconduct can take many forms, including:
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: failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistle-blowers, or failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct accepted as a condition of funding. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct includes the inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements
7. Honest errors and differences in, for example, research methodology or interpretations, do not constitute research misconduct
8. A finding of research misconduct will be based on a judgement, made on the balance of probabilities, that an individual acted intentionally or recklessly in carrying out any part of the research. Where concerns relate to a deliberate or reckless departure from accepted research practices, but do not clearly fall within the definitions of misconduct, consideration should be given to whether the matter should be investigated under this Procedure.
Questionable Research Practices (QRPs)

The University recognises that concerns may arise regarding research practices that fall below expected standards but do not constitute research misconduct. Such practices, referred to as Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) (for example, poor data management, inadequate supervision, inappropriate statistical methods, or incomplete reporting), will normally be addressed through proportionate corrective or developmental measures, such as training, mentoring, enhanced supervision or other appropriate management processes, rather than through the formal misconduct investigation procedure. However, where such practices are serious, repeated, or give rise to concerns about research integrity, they may be considered under the procedures for investigating research misconduct.
The Named Person is the individual nominated by the University to have responsibility for receiving any concerns relating to conduct in research; initiating and supervising the Procedure for investigating any perceived breaches of good research conduct; 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. At the University of Dundee this is Vice Principal for Research and Innovation (VPR&I)
The Nominated Alternative is the individual who should carry out the role of the Named Person in their absence or in the case of any potential or actual conflict of interest. At the University of Dundee this is Associate Vice Principal for Research (AVPR).
The Initiator is a person making allegations of misconduct of research against one or more Respondents. They need not be a member of the Organisation.
The Respondent is “the person against whom allegations of misconduct in research have been made. They will be a present or past employee/research student of the Organisation that is investigating the allegations using the Procedure, or an individual visiting the Organisation to undertake research.”
Research – The University adopts a definition of research consistent with the OECD Frascati Manual (2015), which defines research and experimental development as creative and systematic work undertaken to increase knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of that knowledge.

5. Procedures

The University is committed to ensuring that all concerns and alleged breaches of research integrity are investigated thoroughly, fairly and expeditiously, and with care and sensitivity. The Procedure sets out how allegations of research misconduct will be dealt with both informally and formally.
The Procedure handling alleged breaches of research integrity is separated into five stages, these are outlined below and as shown in Figure 1.
Concerns of alleged breach of integrity are raised by emailing [email protected]. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) in Research & Innovation Services (RIS) acknowledges receipt, logs the concern and determines if the matter is one of research integrity.
1. Stage 1 – Reviewing a Concern. The purpose of this stage is to review the Concern that has been raised to determine if there is a is case to be answered and to identify the most appropriate route for doing so. This stage is not intended to assess the substance of the case itself. This stage will be initiated if the RIO determines that the concern falls within the scope of this Procedure.
2. Stage 2 – Initial Investigation. An initial assessment is undertaken to establish whether the concern has sufficient substance and falls within the remit of the Procedure. This stage determines whether the matter should be dismissed, resolved informally, or progressed to a Full Investigation.
3. Stage 3 – Full Investigation. A formal investigation is carried out by an appointed Panel to examine the evidence in detail. The Panel reviews documentation, interviews relevant individuals, and reaches a conclusion on whether a breach of research integrity has occurred, based on the balance of probabilities.
4. Stage 4 – Appeals. The Initiator and/or Respondent may appeal the outcome on defined grounds. An independent Appeals Panel reviews the conduct of the investigation and the evidence considered, to determine whether the original findings should be upheld or reconsidered.
5. Stage 5 – Outcomes, Follow-up Actions and Reporting. Findings are formally reported following the investigation and appropriate actions are taken. This may include addressing any misconduct identified, initiating disciplinary or other formal procedures where appropriate, correcting the research record, and notifying relevant internal and external stakeholders where required.
6. Stage 6 - Lessons Learned and Institutional Improvement. Following the conclusion of an investigation under this Procedure, the University may undertake a review to identify any lessons that may strengthen research integrity practices, governance, training, supervision, or oversight.

5.4. Stage 1 – Reviewing a Concern

The purpose of this stage is to review the Concern that has been raised to determine whether there is a case to answer and to identify the most appropriate route for addressing the matter. This stage is not intended to assess the substance of the allegation itself.
This stage will be initiated where the RIO determines that the concern falls within the scope of this Procedure. The RIO will inform the Named Person (see 4.5), who will ask the appropriate Faculty Associate Vice-Principal for Research (F-AVP) to arrange an initial assessment of the concern. The F-AVP may nominate an appropriate individual to undertake this task on their behalf, having first determined that no conflict of interest exists.
The review will be conducted by the F-AVP, or nominated alternative, with support from the Research Integrity Office within Research and Innovation Services (RIS).
Informal Approach – It is best for all concerned for a matter to be resolved at the earliest possible stage. To that end an individual raising a concern may, in the first instance attempt to address the issue with either the person or persons concerned or an appropriate senior colleague rather than raising a concern straight away via this Procedure.
1. Confidential and impartial advice may also be sought from one of the University’s Research Integrity Leads. Where the initiator is not satisfied with the outcome of this approach, or if this approach is not deemed appropriate then they should raise Concerns via this Procedure.
Concerns of alleged breach of integrity (“Concerns”) are raised by emailing [email protected]. Initiators should provide a summary of the concern along with any other information and enclose any evidence to support their concerns. Although Initiators are encouraged to raise matters in a single submission, on a single occasion, as this facilitates a thorough assessment of the concerns raised and in the identification of the route forward, it is recognised that not all Initiators will be aware of this requirement. All concerns will receive a thorough and fair assessment regardless of their presentation. Emails sent to this address are treated as confidential and can only be accessed by the RIO and the Director of Research Innovation Services (RIS).
1. Concerns may also be raised by individuals external to the University. Where a concern is raised by an individual external to the University, it will be considered under this Procedure where it relates to research conducted under the auspices of the University. The extent of information provided to the initiator regarding the progress or outcome of any assessment or investigation may be limited by confidentiality, data protection, or employment considerations.
2. The University’s Whistle Blowing Policy may also be used can also be used by University staff and students do not feel comfortable raising a concern directly.
This Procedure asks persons to put their name to any concerns they make. Concerns that are anonymous, or where there is no specific Initiator will be considered at the discretion of the Named Person, taking account of the seriousness of the concerns raised and the likelihood of confirming them from alternative sources/evidence. Such concerns will also be recorded to determine whether any broader concerns (such as malicious activity) are occurring.
Upon receipt of a concern, the RIO will acknowledge, log the concern and conduct a preliminary assessment to establish whether the matter relates to a potential breach of research integrity. Where appropriate the RIO will refer the concern to the Named Person for consideration under this procedure.
Where the RIO considers that the concern raises potentially significant issues, including risks to staff, research participants or other persons, suffering of animals or negative environmental consequence, the RIO will inform the Named Person without delay. The Named Person may then take, or recommend, immediate precautionary action (see 5.4.15 and 5.4.16).
Where the Named Person, or any individual who would normally have a role under this Procedure, is the subject of the concern or has a potential conflict of interest, they will take no part in the consideration of the matter. In such cases, the University Principal will appoint an alternative senior member of staff to fulfil the relevant role for the purposes of this Procedure.
Following receipt of the concern the Named Person will acknowledge receipt in writing and inform the Initiator that the that the concern considered under the “Reviewing a Concern” stage of the Procedure.
The Named Person ask the appropriate Faculty Associate Vice-Principal for Research (F-AVP) to arrange an initial assessment of the concern. The F-AVP may nominate an appropriate individual to undertake this task on their behalf, having first determined that no conflict of interest exists. The F-AVP/ nominated Alternative will review the concern to determine whether it falls within the University’s responsibility to address it.
This preliminary assessment will include the following criteria:
1. Whether the subject of the concern (The Respondent) is/was conducting research under the auspices of the University, whether solely or in conjunction with other in the University of externally;
2. Whether the research projects(s) to which the mater relates is being or was conducted under the auspices of the University, whether solely or in conjunction with other bodies; and
3. Whether the matter raised potentially falls within the definition of breaches of research integrity.
The F-AVP/ nominated Alternative may decide that it is necessary to contact either the Initiator or Respondent for further information to inform the review. If this respondent is contacted at this stage, they will be informed that a concern has been raised and is being assessed to determine what if any action should be taken. The initiator of the matter will be informed before the respondent is contacted.
The F-AVP or nominated alternative will determine whether there is a prima facie case to answer and will provide the Named Person with a written report, including the reasons for the determination and supporting evidence.
The Named Person will determine whether the matter raised and/or the research project(s) in question concern situations that require immediate action to prevent further risk or harm to staff, research participants or other persons, suffering of animals or negative environmental consequences. If so, then the Named Person will take immediate appropriate action to ensure that any such potential or actual danger/illegal activity/risk is prevented/eliminated. It may be necessary to notify legal or regulatory authorities or relevant professional bodies, and/or relevant partner organisations, publishers and funders. The Respondent may also need to be informed when carrying out any such actions whether because they will be involved in some or all the actions and/or because they will become aware of them.
The Named Person will also determine whether the research project(s) in question include legal or contractual obligations that must be undertaken in the event of concerns being raised. This may include reporting to a regulatory or funding body and may include concerns of breaches of research integrity or other research related conduct such as acts of bullying and harassment. The respondent will be informed as necessary. The Named Person will ensure that all requirements are met, seeking advice where necessary. These obligations may be:
1. A contract/agreement or guidance on research conduct from a regulator or funding body;
2. A partnership contract/ agreement/ Memorandum of Understanding; or
3. An agreement to sponsor the research.
Possible Outcomes: Following full consideration of the available facts the Named Person will determine whether the concern raised falls under one of more of the following outcomes:
1. it potentially falls under the definition of breaches of research integrity and the scope of the Procedure and should advance to Stage 2 - Initial Investigation Stage;
2. it falls within the scope of another formal procedure of the University and should be referred directly to it, for example the University’s Disciplinary or Bullying & Harassment procedures.
3. it will be referred directly to an external organisation, for example the research organisation(s) under whose auspices the research in question took place; statutory regulators; or professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant where there are concerns relating to Fitness to Practise; or
4. it relates to an error or a QRP of a non-serious and/or non-complex nature and therefore the initial approach to addressing the matter will be via informal assessment and resolution of the concern (Annex 3), rather than through the next stage of the Procedure or other formal processes; or
5. it should be dismissed because it does not fall under the remit of the Procedure and does not need to be referred elsewhere.
The Named Person must summarise their review of the assessment of the concern(s) and inform other contacts as appropriate of the next steps.
Where the outcome is determined to be 5.4.16 (a)-(d) above, the procedure is at an end, see below, “ Stage 5: Outcomes, Follow-Up Actions and Reporting” (5.8) for information on managing the final stage.
Where the outcome is determined to be 5.4.16 (e), above the Named Person must inform the Respondent of the following, formally and in writing:
1. That a concern relating to the conduct of research has been made that involves them.
2. A summary of the concern(s) and a copy of the Procedure.
3. That the Named Person has determined that the matter falls under this Procedure and will therefore proceed to the “Initial Investigation” stage.
4. That no decision has been taken on the substance of the concerns raised, and that they will be given the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised.
5. The conclusions of the review of the concerns raised an outline of the next steps and approximate timescales. Where possible, this may include the identity of the investigator and an indication of when they will be in contact to gain the Respondent's version of events.
6. When concerns have been made against more than one Respondent, the Named Person will inform each individual separately and not divulge the identity of any other Respondent.
The Initiator will be informed, in writing of the conclusions of the review of the concerns they have raised and an outline of the next steps. Such communication at this and all subsequent stages will be the responsibility of the RIO.
All allegations will be taken seriously and considered carefully. However, where an allegation is found to be unfounded and to have been made in bad faith or with malicious intent, the University may consider taking appropriate action, which may include disciplinary or conduct proceedings against the Initiator(s).
The actions in this section above should take place as soon as is practicable upon receipt of a concern, normally within ten working days.

5.5. Stage 2: Initial Investigation

The Purpose of the Initial Investigation Stage is to determine whether a matter raised meets the criteria for a Full Investigation to be carried out or whether alternative action(s) should be taken.
The Named Person may nominate an Investigator to assist in carrying out an initial investigation or fulfil the Investigator role themselves. The Investigator will normally be an experienced member of academic staff from within the University who will work with the Respondent and Initiator, separately, to determine if the matter meets the criteria for a Full Investigation to be carried out or whether alternative actions(s) should be taken. The Respondent and Initiator will be given the opportunity to raise with the Named Person any concerns that they may have with the person chosen to carry out the Initial Investigation but neither has a right to veto over those nominated.
The Named Person will identify suitable administrative and other support to assist the Investigator.
All persons appointed to carry out the Initial Investigation will confirm to the Vice Principal for Research & Innovation in writing that:
1. their participation involves no conflict of interest;
2. they will abide by the Procedure;
3. they will respect the confidentiality of the proceedings; and
4. they will adhere to the Principles and Standards of the Procedure.
In the event of the Investigator becoming unable to complete the Initial Investigation Stage once it is underway, the Named Person will determine whether a new person should be selected to take the role of Investigator and either continue the investigation from its current position or restart the Initial Investigation Stage.
The Named Person will provide the Investigator with all relevant information including any correspondence and information already provided. The Investigator will keep a full record of the evidence received and of the proceedings. The Investigator will gather the information required to reach a conclusion and will have the option to interview the Initiator, the Respondent and any other persons considered appropriate. If the Investigator interviews the Respondent, he/she shall be given the opportunity to formally respond to the concern made against him/ her, set out his/her case and to present evidence. The Initiator and Respondent may be accompanied at meetings (e.g. by a union representative)
The Investigator will assess the information obtained and any additional information they require. The work of the Investigator will include:
1. determination on whether the concern was made in good faith;
2. a confidential review and assessment of the evidence provided;
3. a conclusion on the concern(s) in line with the possible outcomes set out below.
Where a concern relates to a body of work, or work carried out over a significant period, the Investigator will require more time and resources to investigate. Advice should be sought from the Named Person as to the conduct of such investigations.
The Investigator will normally aim to complete the Initial Investigation within 30 working days following instruction from the Named Person provided this does not compromise the Principles and Standards of the Procedure (see Annexes 1 and 2) and the full and fair investigation of the concern. Any delays to this timescale will be explained to the Initiator, the Respondent and the Named Person in writing, presenting an estimated revised date of completion.
Possible Outcomes: Following full consideration of the available facts the Investigator will determine if the concern raised:
1. is sufficiently serious and has sufficient substance to warrant a Full Investigation of the complaint; or
2. has some substance but due to its relatively minor nature or because it relates to poor research practice rather than to research misconduct, will be addressed through informal measures (Annex 3) such as education and training or another non-disciplinary approach, such as mediation, rather than through the next stage of the Procedure or other formal processes; or
3. should be referred to another formal process of the University. These may include but are not limited to: Staff Disciplinary Procedures, Student Disciplinary or Academic Misconduct procedures, Fraud Prevention and Investigation Policy, and Dignity at Work and Study Policy (harassment and bullying); or
4. warrants referral directly to an external organisation; or
5. is unfounded, because it is mistaken or is frivolous or is otherwise without substance, and will be dismissed; or
6. is unfounded, and is vexatious and/or malicious, and will be dismissed.
The Investigator will write a short report which will set out the conclusion of the Initial Investigation on the matters raised and on any other matters they wish to draw attention to. The standard of proof used by the Initial Investigation is that of "on the balance of probabilities". This means that the activity was more likely than not to have occurred. A summary of the report will be sent to the Initiator and Respondent to comment on matters of factual accuracy prior to being submitted, along with records/materials relating to the investigation to the Named Person.
The Named Person shall convey the substance of the Investigator's findings to the Initiator, the Respondent and such other persons or bodies as they deem appropriate.
The Named Person will then undertake the following actions depending on the conclusions of the Initial Investigation stage on the matters raised:
1. If it is concluded that the matter(s) raised is/are sufficiently serious and has/have sufficient substance to warrant a Full Investigation, then the investigation moves to the Full Investigation stage (Section 5.6).
2. For all other outcomes, the process moves to the Outcomes and Reporting stage (Section 5.8)
The work of the Investigator is then concluded, and they play no further role in the Procedure or any subsequent disciplinary procedure, apart from clarifying any points in their report. As the matter may then give rise to disciplinary or other action, a former Investigator should not make any comment on the matter in question, unless formally permitted by the University or otherwise required to by law. They should also remember that all information concerning the case was given to them in confidence. Any queries or requests for comment addressed to the Investigator should be referred to the Named Person.
The Initial Investigation stage now ends.

5.6. Stage 3: Full Investigation

The purpose of this stage is to review the evidence and findings from the Initial Investigation and to undertake any further enquiries to establish whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation of misconduct in research should be upheld in full, upheld in part or not upheld as misconduct in research. It is also intended to make recommendations as to the appropriate route for addressing any misconduct identified and to correct the research record.
The Named Person will establish a Full Investigation Panel (“The Panel”) as soon as possible following the conclusion of the Initial Investigation Stage.
The Panel will normally consist of three people who have no bias or conflicts of interest in the case, at least one of whom will be a senior academic officer of the University (Vice-Principal/, Assistant Vice-Principal). There will be at least two individuals with expertise relevant to the allegation, one of whom will be a peer professional from outside the University. At the discretion of the Named Person additional members may be appointed to ensure that the Committee includes sufficient expertise. Where the alleged misconduct involves a member of staff holding a joint University/NHS appointment, the Chief Executive of NHS Tayside will be invited to nominate an additional member of the Investigating Committee. The Panel will be supported by suitable member of Professional Services as nominated by the Named person along with a People representative to advise on employment and related legal matters.
The Named Person will select one of the members of the Panel to act as its Chair. At the discretion of the Named Person, the Chair may be an external member of the Panel. In the event of the Chair becoming unable to participate in the Full Investigation Stage once it is underway, the Named Person will select a new Chair from the members of the Panel and then consider the overall membership of the Panel.
All persons appointed to carry out the Full Investigation, will confirm to the Named Person that:
1. Their participation involves no conflict of interest;
2. They will abide by the Procedure;
3. They will respect the confidentiality of the proceedings and data protection requirements; and
4. They will adhere to the Principles and Standards of the Procedure.
5. they will complete the UKRIO online research integrity training.
The Initiator and Respondent may raise with the Named Person concerns that they may have about those chosen to carry out the Full Investigation but neither has a right of veto over those nominated.
The Chair will keep a full record of the evidence received and the proceedings and will be supported in this by the support identified by the Named Person. The Chair and each of the Panel members will be provided with:
1. a copy of this Procedure;
2. details of the concern(s) for consideration;
3. a copy of the Named Person's note of the concerns raised stage;
4. a copy of the report of the Initial Investigation stage;
5. other records from the Initial Investigation stage as deemed relevant by the Named Person;
6. names and contact details of the Initiator and the Respondent(s);
7. a summary of correspondence with the Initiator) and the Respondent(s) to date;
8. a summary of any evidence secured by the Named Person during the Raising Concerns stage or by the Investigator during the Initial Investigation stage.
The Named Person will inform the Initiator and the Respondent formally and in writing that the Procedure has moved to the Full Investigation stage and that they will be interviewed as part of the process and will be allowed to provide evidence. They will also be informed that they may be accompanied to any meetings by a colleague or Trade Union representative.
The Respondents normally will be informed of the name of any Initiator(s) who have raised the matter(s) concerning them at the discretion of the Named Person. In exceptional circumstances the identity of the Initiator(s) may remain confidential following advice from the People Directorate / Student and/or Legal Services.
The Initiator will be informed that their identity is being disclosed to the Respondent(s) at this point unless it has been determined that it should remain confidential.

Operation and Conduct of the Panel

The Chair of the Panel will be responsible for overseeing the conduct of proceedings during the Full Investigation. The Panel does not have any disciplinary powers but does have the option to recommend that disciplinary action is taken. It will determine its approach in accordance with this Procedure, including what information is required and which individuals it wishes to interview or obtain statements from, in addition to the Initiator and the Respondent, who will be interviewed. In reaching decisions on the conduct of the investigation and its conclusions, the Panel will seek to reach consensus through discussion.
The work of the Panel will include:
1. a determination if the matter is made in good faith;
2. a confidential review and assessment of the evidence provided;
3. reaching a conclusion on the concern(s) in line with the possible outcomes set out below (5.6.14); and
4. making recommendations where necessary on further actions to address issues identified in the Full Investigation.
As part of its work, the Panel will interview the Initiator and the Respondent separately; where there are multiple Initiators and/or Respondents, each will be interviewed individually and never together. The Respondent will be given the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised, present their case and submit evidence for the Panel’s consideration. Where an Initiator or Respondent does not wish to be interviewed, they will be invited to engage with the process through alternative means, such as providing written responses to questions posed by the Panel. The Panel will also interview relevant witnesses, including those identified by the Initiator or Respondent.

Conclusion of the Panel

Once the Full Investigation is complete, the Panel will produce a report setting out its conclusions, the reasons for its decisions, and any differing views. The Panel will conclude if on the balance of probabilities, the allegation of misconduct is:
1. upheld in full; or
2. upheld in part; or
3. has some substance but due to its relatively minor nature or because it relates to poor research practice rather than to research misconduct, will be addressed through informal measures (Annex 3) such as education and training or another non-disciplinary approach, such as mediation, rather than through the next stage of the Procedure or other formal processes; or
4. will be referred directly to another formal process of the University, including but not limited to Staff Disciplinary Procedures, Student Disciplinary, Academic Misconduct procedures, Fraud Prevention and Investigation Policy, and Dignity at Work and Study Policy (harassment and bullying); or
5. warrants referral directly to an external organisation, including but not limited to the current employer, statutory regulators or professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant where there are concerns relating to Fitness to Practise; or
6. is unfounded, because it is mistaken or is frivolous or is otherwise without substance and will be dismissed; or
7. is unfounded, because it is vexatious and/or malicious, and will be dismissed.
The Panel may also make recommendations to the Named Person and/or appropriate University authorities on any further actions required, including addressing any misconduct identified, correcting the research record, and dealing with other relevant matters arising from the investigation. Such recommendations might include but are not limited to:
1. whether the matter should be referred to the University’s Staff Disciplinary or Student Disciplinary procedures; and/or
2. whether the matter should be referred to another relevant University process, such as the Academic Misconduct procedures or equivalent or the University’s Fraud Prevention investigation process; and/or
3. what external organisations should be informed of the findings of the investigation, with appropriate confidentiality, including statutory regulators, relevant funding bodies, partner organisations and professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant if concerns relate to Fitness to Practise; and/or
4. whether any action will be required to correct the record of research, including informing the publishers and editors of any journals that have published articles concerning research linked to an upheld concern of misconduct in research or to correct honest errors; and/or
5. whether procedural or organisational matters should be addressed by the University or other relevant bodies through a review of the management of research; and/or
6. informing research participants or patients or their doctors; and/or
  
  other matters that should be investigated, including concerns about misconduct in research which are either unrelated to the concern in question or alleged to have been committed by persons other than the Respondent and/or other forms of alleged misconduct.
The outcome of the investigation will be shared with the Initiator and the Respondent for comment on factual accuracy. The Panel will consider any responses received and, where it identifies errors of fact, will amend the report as necessary.
The Panel will submit its final report to the Named Person. The Named Person will then communicate the substance of the Panel’s findings and any recommendations to the Initiator, the Respondent, and any other relevant persons or bodies as appropriate.
The Panel will normally aim to complete the Full Investigation within 65 working days (approximately 3 months) of being established, provided this does not compromise the Principles and Standards of the Procedure (see Annexes 1 and 2) or the need for a full and fair investigation. The timeframe may vary depending on the number and complexity of the allegations under investigation. Any delay will be communicated in writing to the Initiator, the Respondent and the Named Person, together with a revised estimated completion date.

Resolution of the Full Investigation Stage

The Panel will be disbanded following submission of the final report to the Named Person. As the matter may then give rise to disciplinary or other action, the Chair and members of the disbanded Panel should not make any comment on the matter in question, unless formally requested by the University or otherwise required to by law. They should also remember that all information concerning the case was given to them in confidence.
The Full Investigation stage is complete, and the Procedure moves to the Appeals Stage.
Those who have contributed to the disbanded Panel should have no further involvement in the Procedure unless formally asked to clarify a point in their written report at a subsequent stage or as part of any subsequent action or process. A role as Chair or member of the Panel rules out participation in any subsequent disciplinary or other processes.
The Full Investigation stage now ends.

5.7 Appeals

The purpose of the appeals stage is to allow the Initiator and/or the Respondent to appeal, in defined circumstances (5.7.3), against the findings of an investigation conducted under this Procedure, in accordance with the requirements of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
The appeals process will be managed by an individual other than the Named Person to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. An alternative designated individual who has not been involved in the matter previously will establish an Appeals Panel, whose appointment is discussed under section 5.7.7, below. At least one member of the Appeals Panel must be from outside the Organisation.
The Initiator and/or the Respondent may appeal against the outcome of the Procedure, including any associated decisions and/or recommendations associated with them. Any appeal must be submitted in writing to the Alternative Named Person within 10 working days of notification of the outcome, setting out the grounds of appeal and, where possible, supported by relevant documentation.

Process of the Appeals Panel

An Appeal should be heard within two months of the outcome of the investigation. Any delay will be communicated in writing to the Initiator and the Respondent together with a revised estimated completion date.
Appeals may be permitted on any or all of the following grounds:
1. Procedural irregularity in the conduct of the investigation up to and before the Appeal Panel that could have had a material impact on the outcome.
2. Fresh evidence becoming available which was not available to the Investigator and/or the Full Investigation Panel.
3. There was evidence of bias or unfairness in the process or decisions taken by the Named Person, Investigator and/or the Full Investigation Panel.
4. The recommendations made as part of an outcome of the Procedure/ subsequent actions taken are either excessive or inadequate concerning the misconduct found by the investigation.
The Alternative Named Person will assess the appeal to determine whether it falls within one or more of the grounds set out above, seeking clarification from the appellant(s) where necessary. There are two potential outcomes:
1. If the appeal does not fall within one or more of the grounds for appeal set out above (5.7.4), then the appeal is dismissed and this decision should be communicated to the person who submitted the appeal. The Appeals stage now ends.
2. If the appeal does fall within one or more of the grounds for appeal, the Alternative Named Person shall then, as soon as is practicable, appoint an Appeals Panel to undertake the appeals process.
The Appeals Panel will normally consist of three members. However, the Alternative Named Person may appoint a larger panel where necessary to ensure sufficient expertise and a range of perspectives to reach a thorough and fair conclusion. In constituting the Panel, due regard will be given to equity, diversity and inclusion. No member of the Appeals Panel will have had any prior involvement in the case, including as an Investigator, a member of a Full Investigation Panel, or as the Named Person. Where this is not feasible, the University may consider reciprocal arrangements with other organisations. The Appeals Panel will include:
1. At least one member external to the University; additional external members may be appointed where appropriate, for example where the case is complex or spans multiple disciplines;
2. At least one member with relevant academic expertise in the general area of the alleged misconduct (or, where necessary, specialised knowledge of the field). Where cases involve multiple disciplines, additional members may be appointed to ensure appropriate expertise;
3. Where the case involves staff on joint clinical or honorary contracts, representation from the other employing organisation(s) may be included; such individuals will not be considered as the external member of the Panel.
4. Once established, the membership of the Appeals Panel will not normally be changed. If membership falls below its initial number, the Alternative Named Person will determine whether to appoint additional members and continue the process or to restart the appeal.
The Alternative Named Person will appoint one member of the Appeals Panel to act as Chair. If the Chair becomes unable to continue once the Appeals Stage is underway, the Alternative Named Person will appoint a replacement from among the Panel members and review the overall composition of the Panel. Where appropriate, the Chair may be selected from the external members of the Appeals Panel, which may help to provide assurance that the process is transparent, thorough and fair.
All individuals involved in, or observing, the Appeals Stage must confirm to the Alternative Named Person that:
1. Their participation involves no conflict of interest, seeking advice from the Named Person if unsure;
2. They will abide by the Procedure as it affects the work of the Appeals stage;
3. They will respect the confidentiality of the proceedings;
4. They will adhere to the Principles and Standards of the Procedure.
The Respondent and the Initiator may raise any concerns with the Alternative Named Person regarding those appointed to carry out the Appeals Stage; however, neither has a right of veto over the nominations. The Alternative Named Person will consider any concerns raised and determine whether alternative individuals should be appointed.
The Chair is responsible for maintaining a full record of the Appeals Panel’s work and will be supported in this by appropriate administrative and other support identified by the Named Person.
The Appeals Panel will seek to reach decisions by consensus and will review the conduct of the investigation and any evidence submitted in support of the appeal(s), rather than re-investigating the concerns.
The Appeals Panel will decide whether it upholds, reverses or modifies the outcome in question by the Procedure, including the decisions and/or recommendations associated with it. The decision of the Appeal Panel is final.
The Appeals Panel will prepare a report setting out its conclusions, the reasons for its decisions, and any differing views. A summary of the conclusions will be shared with the Initiator and the Respondent for comment on factual accuracy; the Panel will consider any responses received and amend the report where necessary. The final report will then be submitted to the Alternative Named Person, together with all records and materials relating to the investigation.
The Alternative Named Person shall convey the substance of the Appeals Panel’s findings and any recommendations to the Initiator, the Respondent, and any other relevant persons or bodies as appropriate.
The Alternative Named Person will take any necessary action to implement the conclusions of the Appeals Panel, in accordance with the Outcomes and Reporting stage, liaising with the RIO and other relevant individuals within or external to the University as appropriate.
The work of the Appeals Panel will conclude upon submission of its final report, after which the Panel will be disbanded. As the matter may give rise to disciplinary or other action, the Chair and members must not comment on the case unless formally authorised by the University or required by law. They must also maintain the confidentiality of all information received during the process.
Any queries or requests for comment addressed to the Chair or members of the Appeals Panel should be referred to the Alternative Named Person. Following disbandment, members of the Appeals Panel will have no further involvement in the Procedure, except where formally requested to clarify aspects of their report. Individuals who have served as Chair or members of the Appeals Panel will not participate in any subsequent disciplinary or related processes.
The Appeals Stage now ends.

5.8. Stage 5: Outcomes, Follow-Up Actions and Reporting

The purpose of the Outcomes and Reporting stage is to ensure that all necessary actions are taken at the conclusion of the Procedure, including those arising from any Initial or Full Investigation, and to ensure that the research record is accurate.
The Named Person is responsible for ensuring that the actions set out in this stage are carried out. This may require liaison with other departments within the University and, where appropriate, external organisations.
Possible Outcomes: the Named Person is responsible for ensuring that any necessary actions are carried out after an investigation is completed. In general terms, these actions may include:
1. Actions relating to the operation and conclusion of this Procedure, including appropriate transfers of information to any subsequent Organisational processes or informal measures (see Resolution using informal measures, Annex 3), and/or to any relevant processes of external organisations.
2. Reporting the outcomes to relevant colleagues/ bodies within the University, for example, line managers, Human Resources and/or Student Services, Academic Board or equivalent.
3. Making necessary disclosures on the outcomes of uses of the Procedure to external organisations and other interested parties.
4. Duty of care to Initiators, Respondents and other involved parties, including but not limited to research participants.
5. Ensuring that appropriate efforts are made to correct the research record.
6. Addressing procedural or organisational matters uncovered during the investigation.
The required steps of this list fall into two categories: “Required actions” apply to all uses of the Procedure, while “actions required following [OUTCOME]” relate to specific outcomes. All required actions should be completed first, followed by those associated with the relevant outcome.
Required Actions: The Named Person working with the RIO, and with others as necessary, should take any further action(s) 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 but are not limited to:
1. whether following the conclusion of the operation of this Procedure, the matter should be referred to the Organisation's relevant disciplinary procedure; and/or
2. whether following the conclusion of the operation of this Procedure, the matter referred to another relevant University process, such as the examination regulations, academic misconduct process or equivalent or the University’s financial fraud investigation process; and/or
3. what individuals and/or departments within the University should be notified of the findings of the investigation, such as line managers, Human Resources and/or Student Services, a central committee with responsibility for research policy, strategy and quality, or equivalents; and/or
4. what external organisations should be informed of the findings of the investigation, with appropriate confidentiality, such as statutory regulators, relevant funding bodies, partner organisations and professional bodies, the latter being particularly relevant if concerns relate to Fitness to Practise; and/or
5. informing research participants and other involved parties; and/or
6. 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 concern of misconduct in research and/or by a person against whom a concern about misconduct in research has been upheld; and/or
7. whether procedural or organisational matters should be addressed by the University or other relevant bodies through a review of the management of research and other measures as appropriate; and/or
8. other matters that should be investigated, including any further matters raised, either unrelated to the matters in question or alleged to have been committed by persons other than the Respondent and/or other forms of alleged misconduct; and/or
9. communication of anonymised summary data on uses of this Procedure within a specific period. This includes reporting required in the Annual statement on research integrity required under The Concordat to support Research Integrity, reports to relevant committees/ departments within the Organisation, and dissemination of anonymised learning points within the Organisation as appropriate.
In determining these actions, the Named Person and the Research Integrity Officer will take into account any recommendations made by the Full Investigation Panel, as well as the need to involve relevant internal departments (for example, line managers, Human Resources, and committees or units responsible for research quality) and, where appropriate, external bodies (such as partner organisations, publishers, funders and regulatory authorities).
Actions required following the conclusion that the concern(s) is unfounded because it is mistaken or is frivolous or is otherwise without substance: The Named Person will take appropriate steps to protect the reputation of the Respondent and, where concerns have been raised in good faith, the Initiator. Where a case has attracted adverse publicity, the Respondent may be offered the opportunity for an official statement to be issued by the University. Individuals who raise concerns in good faith will not be penalised. The Named Person will liaise with relevant internal support services to support the wellbeing of the Respondent and, if needed, the Initiator. Clear and appropriate communication of the outcome, and the reasons for it, will be provided to support understanding of the process and its conclusions.
Actions required following the conclusion that the concern(s) is unfounded because it is vexatious and/or malicious: The Named Person may recommend to the appropriate authorities that action be taken where there is clear evidence that a complaint was vexatious or malicious, including disciplinary action where the individual is internal to the University. The Named Person will also take appropriate steps to protect the reputation of the Respondent and, where a case has attracted adverse publicity, may offer the opportunity for an official statement to be issued by the University. In addition, the Named Person will liaise with relevant internal support services to support the wellbeing of the Respondent.
Actions required following the conclusion that the concern(s) warrants referral directly to another formal process of the Organisation: Where appropriate, the Named Person will inform the Initiator in writing of:
1. the reasons why the concern cannot be investigated using this Procedure;
2. which process for dealing with complaints is appropriate for handling the concern; and
3. that the concern will be referred to the relevant department/ process.
The Named Person will then refer the matter to the relevant department/ process.
Actions required following the conclusion that the concern(s) warrants referral directly to an external organisation:

When the Named Person has determined that the concern does not relate to researchers or research under the auspices of the Organisation, the Named Person will inform the Initiator, in writing, of:
1. The reasons why the Organisation is not an appropriate body to investigate the concern;
2. Which external organisation(s) might be an appropriate body to investigate the concern;
3. Relevant information relating to contacting the external organisation(s).
Actions required following the conclusion that the concern(s) has some substance but due to its relatively minor nature or because it relates to poor research practice rather than to research misconduct, will be addressed through informal measures: The Named Person shall ensure that the relevant informal measures are provided either directly or by referring the matter to the relevant department(s).
Further advice on addressing matters using informal measures, rather than a punitive/ disciplinary approach, is outlined earlier in Annex 3, Resolution using Informal Measures.
Actions required following the conclusion that the concern(s) is 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. Should the concerns proceed to the Organisation's disciplinary process, the report of the Full Investigation Panel should form the basis of the evidence that the disciplinary panel receives. Relevant information collected and brought to light through the Procedure should be transferred to the disciplinary process.
The Named Person should take such steps as are appropriate, given the seriousness of the concerns, to support the reputation of the Initiator and, if the concern has been upheld in part rather than in full, the Respondent as appropriate, and any relevant research project(s).
Following the conclusion of the Procedure, the Named Person may need to recommend further measures in addition to those that may be taken by way of the University’s disciplinary process.
Following the conclusion of the Procedure, the Named Person may recommend further measures, in addition to any action taken through the University’s disciplinary processes. These may include, but are not limited to, the actions set out below, alongside the “Required Actions” outlined above (see 5.8.5)
1. Recommendations for retraction/correction of published research, via notification of findings to editors/ publishers;
2. withdrawal/repayment of funding;
3. notifying research participants and other involved parties;
4. notification of findings to relevant employers, statutory, regulatory, professional, grant-awarding bodies or other public bodies with a relevant interest;
5. notifying other employing organisations;
6. notifying other organisations involved in the research;
7. adding a note of the outcome of the investigation to a researcher's file for any future requests for references;
8. reviewing internal management and/or training and/or supervisory procedures for research; and/or
9. revocation of any degrees awarded based on research that is the subject of a research misconduct finding.
Where an investigation identifies research misconduct affecting a significant body of work overtime, the University may consider reviewing other work undertaken by the individual(s), including work not specifically examined during the investigation.
The Initiator and Informant will be informed of:
1. The actions arising from this stage of the Procedure and any relevant actions arising from earlier stages and, where relevant, the contact points for any follow-up communications regarding those actions.
2. They should also be informed that the investigation and the use of this Procedure have now concluded.
The Outcomes and Reporting stage of the Procedure is then concluded, with the Named Person and RIO involved in follow-up actions, or receiving reports on them, as appropriate. As the matter may then give rise to disciplinary or other action, the Named Person and RIO should remember that all information concerning the concern and investigation was given to them in confidence.
A role as the Named Person or Research Integrity Officer rules out participation in any subsequent disciplinary process.
The Outcomes and Reporting stage now ends.

6. Lessons Learned and Institutional Improvement

Following the conclusion of an investigation under this Procedure, the University may undertake a review to identify any lessons that may strengthen research integrity practices, governance, training, supervision, or oversight.
Where appropriate, the RIO, in consultation with relevant University officers, will consider whether improvements to policies, procedures, guidance, training programmes, or research management processes are required to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in future.
Any lessons identified will be addressed in a manner that preserves confidentiality and protects the identities of individuals involved. Where appropriate, anonymised insights may be used to inform institutional guidance, training, and improvements to research integrity practices, and may be reflected in the University’s Annual Research Integrity Statement.

7. References

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, OECD Publishing.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Guidance on Research Activity (Frascati-based definition).
UK Research Integrity Office, Procedure of the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (2023).
UK Research Integrity Office, Detailed Template Procedure for Investigating Breaches of Research Integrity (2025).
Universities UK et al., The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025).
Procedure concern res misconduct Nov 2025 – Portsmouth 2025
Policy and Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct - Staff home, University of York
Research Misconduct Policy - Durham University

Annex 1 Principles

Misconduct in research is a serious matter. The investigation of concerns and alleged breaches of research integrity must be conducted by the highest standards of integrity, accuracy, and fairness.
Those responsible for carrying out investigations of alleged misconduct should always act with integrity and sensitivity
The following principles of Data Protection, Fairness, Confidentiality, Integrity, Prevention of Detriment, and Balance as defined below must inform the use of this Procedure for the investigation of concerns and alleged breaches of research integrity.
Those responsible for carrying out this Procedure must be aware that there may be occasions when a balance has to be struck in the application of the Principles. This is discussed under ‘Balance’ at the end of this Annex.

Data Protection

The use of this Procedure to investigate or otherwise respond to any allegation will constitute the processing of the personal data of living individuals. Such processing is regulated by the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation ("Data Protection Legislation"). The University must comply with the Data Protection Legislation and accordingly any investigation or use of this Procedure will be carried out in accordance with it.
The University recognises that it may process special category data while carrying out the Procedure and it will do so in accordance with the Data Protection Legislation.

Fairness

The investigation of any concerns of misconduct in research must be carried out fairly and in accordance with the statutory human rights of all parties involved.
Matters should be dealt with promptly - without unreasonable delay of meetings, decisions or outcomes. Respondents should be dealt with consistently – dealing with similar cases in different ways or by delivering very different outcomes creates a risk of unfair outcomes, claims and reputational damage for the University.
Those responsible for carrying out this Procedure should do so with knowledge of:
1. the statutory obligations of the University and the rights of employees according to current law;
2. any additional rights and obligations particular to the institution and/or its employees and/or its students - for example, those bestowed by university statutes and ordinances.
Those responsible for carrying out this Procedure should be mindful of equality, diversity and inclusion, and also ensure that all related obligations are met. Where the allegations concern any equality, diversity or inclusion issues, those carrying out the Procedure will be appropriately trained or have relevant experience in dealing with equality, diversity and inclusion matters.
Where anyone is formally accused of misconduct in research, that person must be given full details of the allegations in writing at the appropriate stage.
When someone is investigated for alleged misconduct in research under this Procedure, they must be given a reasonable opportunity to set out their case and respond to the allegations against them. They must also be allowed to:
1. ask questions;
2. submit evidence in their defence;
3. suggest witnesses for the Investigator and/or Full Investigation Panel to interview; the Investigator and/or Full Investigation Panel may then choose to invite the suggested witnesses to interview;
4. raise points with the Investigator and/or Full Investigation Panel, as appropriate, about any information given by any witness (regardless of who has called the witness in question).
The Respondent, Initiator and any witnesses involved in the Initial Investigation stage or the Full Investigation stage may:
1. If they are staff or students of the University, be accompanied to interviews by a colleague, trade union or student union representative, or whoever else is specified in any additional contractual rights (such as by university statutes and ordinances) when they are required or invited to attend interviews or meetings relating to this Procedure. The University should advise them of this right ahead of any meeting;
2. If they are external to the University, while they will not have a contractual right to be accompanied when they are required or invited to attend interviews or meetings relating to this Procedure, it is strongly advised that they be offered the right to be accompanied by a friend.
3. seek advice and assistance from anyone of their choosing.

Confidentiality

The Procedure should be conducted as confidentially as is reasonably practicable. The confidential nature of the proceedings should be maintained provided this does not compromise either the investigation of the misconduct allegations, any requirements of health and safety or any issue related to the safety of research participants.
The confidential nature of the proceedings is essential to protect the Complainant, the Respondent and others involved in the Procedure.
Nothing in this Procedure prevents anyone from making a disclosure under whistleblowing law (the Public Interest Disclosure Act).
It is important that in the conduct of an investigation using this Procedure that the principles of confidentiality and fairness are applied with appropriate balance for both the Respondent and the Initiator.
The identity of the Initiator or the Respondent should not be made known to any third party unless:
1. it has been deemed necessary (by those conducting the investigation) to carry out the investigation and/or to carry out required/ necessary actions or disclosures following the outcome of the investigation;
2. it is necessary as part of the action taken against the Respondent if (at the end of the Procedure and/or any subsequent process, such as a disciplinary process, and after any appeals processes) the allegations have been upheld;
3. it is necessary as part of the action taken against a person who has been found to have made malicious, vexatious or frivolous concerns;
4. it is the stated policy of the employer/ funder/ other national body that the identity of individuals proved through appropriate disciplinary and appeals processes to have committed misconduct in research should be made public;
5. any party to the Procedure is seeking legal advice or other advice from another third party who owes them a duty of confidentiality;
6. it is already in the public domain;
7. it is required by law or by the University’s regulator.
Any disclosure to a third party of the identity of the Initiator or Respondent, or of any other details of the investigation, should be made on a confidential basis. The third-party should understand this, and that they must respect the confidentiality of any information received.
The University and/or its staff may have contractual/legal obligations to inform third parties, such as funding bodies or collaborating organisation(s), of concerns of misconduct in research. In such cases, those responsible for carrying this Procedure out should ensure that any such obligations are fulfilled at the appropriate time through the correct mechanisms, always keeping in mind the legal rights of the employees, students and others involved in the allegations.
While concerns are under investigation using this Procedure (and/or the University's disciplinary process), the Initiator, the Respondent, witnesses or any other persons involved in this Procedure should not make any statements about the allegations to any third parties, unless formally sanctioned by the University or otherwise required to by law.
Breaching confidentiality may lead to disciplinary action unless covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and/or the University’s grievance or whistle blowing procedures.
In the event of any conflict between the principle of confidentiality and any of the other principles of this Procedure, those conducting the Procedure should consider the balance of probability and use their judgement to choose the appropriate solution.

Integrity

An investigation into concerns and alleged breached of research integrity using the processes of Initial Investigation or Full Investigation of the Procedure must be fair and comprehensive. The investigation should be conducted expeditiously although without compromising the fairness and thoroughness of the process.
Anyone asked to take part in the processes as an Investigator or a member of a Panel must make sure that the investigation is impartial and extensive enough to reach a reasoned judgement on the matter(s) raised.
Those who give evidence to the investigation should do so honestly and objectively following the Principles of the Procedure and should be provided with relevant sections of the Procedure before giving evidence.
All parties involved must inform the Named Person immediately of any interests that they have which might constitute a conflict of interest as regards any aspect of the allegations, the investigation, the area(s) of research in question, or any of the persons concerned. Where the Named Person has any interest which might constitute a conflict, they should declare any such conflicts and refer the investigation to their nominated alternate, who should decide if they should be excluded from involvement in the investigation, recording the reasons for the decision.
In the interests of openness and transparency, inviting at least one member from outside the University to join the Full Investigation Panel of the Procedure is required. When allegations are deemed to be particularly complex or contentious, multiple external members may be invited to join Full Investigation Panels, and likewise to use Initial Investigation Panels to undertake the Initial Investigation stage.
Confidential records should be maintained on all aspects and during all stages, of the Procedure. It is the responsibility of the Named Person to see that such records are maintained and made available at all stages for any use of the Organisation's Disciplinary Processes or any other proceedings or actions which might follow the conclusion of the Procedure.
After the proceedings, all records should be retained by the University in line with the provisions given earlier in this Procedure.
To preserve the integrity of this Procedure, great care must be taken to ensure that all relevant information is transferred to those involved in the various stages of the Procedure, such as between the Initial Investigation stage and any Full Investigation stage or between the Full Investigation stage and any Disciplinary Processes or any other proceedings or actions which might follow the conclusion of the Procedure.
Those responsible for carrying out the Procedure should recognise that failure to transfer information could lead to the process being unfair to the Respondent and/or the Initiator. It could also lead to an appeal being made on the grounds of a failure to observe the Procedure or to the collapse of the investigation. It could also be considered as improper dealing with an allegation, and so another instance of research misconduct.

Prevention of Detriment

In using this Procedure, and in any action taken as a result of using the Procedure, care must be taken to protect:
1. individuals against frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious allegations of misconduct in research;
2. the position and reputation of those suspected of, or alleged to have engaged in, misconduct, when the allegations or suspicions are not confirmed; and
3. the position and reputation of those who make allegations of misconduct in research in good faith, i.e., in the reasonable belief and/or based on supporting evidence that misconduct in research may have occurred.
It is acknowledged that allegations may be made for what appear to be malicious reasons. The Procedure should still be used where the Initiator makes a formal complaint, to establish whether the allegations are of sufficient substance to warrant investigation.
Anyone accused of misconduct in research is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
A full Investigation should establish, on the balance of probabilities, the truth of any concerns.
Any formal steps taken to discipline or otherwise reprimand the Respondent, or take steps which might undermine their good name or reputation (or that of any other party), must be taken through the University’s disciplinary process which provides the Respondent with the right of appeal. Only when allegations have been upheld through the University’s disciplinary process and, where called upon, the appeals process, may it be appropriate to apply any sanctions to the Respondent.
The University must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Respondent (or any other party) does not suffer because of unconfirmed or unproven allegations.
Involvement of the Respondent in the Procedure should not prevent the Respondent from being considered:
1. for promotion;
2. or the completion of probation;
3. or other steps related to their professional development.
The University may choose to suspend the implementation of any promotion, completion of probation or any similar step, for the period that allegations are investigated using the Procedure, rather than delay the actual consideration of such matters.
If the allegations are upheld at the end of the Procedure, subject to the University’s disciplinary process and/or appeals process, the Organisation's normal rules concerning steps related to professional development, such as those detailed above, should apply.
It should be made clear that any actions that might be taken by the Named Person in response to the notification of concerns of misconduct in research are not to be regarded as a disciplinary action and do not in themselves indicate that the allegations are believed to be true by the Organisation. The Named Person and any Investigators and members of any Full Investigation Panels should take steps to make it clear to the Respondent, Initiator and any other involved parties that these actions are necessary to ensure that the concerns of misconduct in research can be properly investigated.
Appropriate action should be taken against:
1. Respondents where the concerns of misconduct in research have been upheld, in full or in part, under this Procedure; and
2. anyone who is found to have made frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious concerns of misconduct in research.

Balance

Those responsible for carrying out this Procedure must be aware that there may be occasions when a balance has to be struck in the application of the Principles and/or its Standards. For example, it may, in certain circumstances prove to be impracticable to undertake a thorough and fair Initial Investigation of the concerns without releasing the Initiator's identity to the Respondent.
The Named Person should be responsible for resolving any such conflicts between the Principles, between the Standards, and/or between the Principles and the Standards, keeping in mind at all times that the primary goal of this Procedure is to determine the truth of the allegations via a thorough and fair investigation, conducted in a timely and transparent manner, and with appropriate confidentiality. The Named Person can seek guidance from UKRIO and other bodies, as well as seeking legal advice.
In addition, the Named Person should be responsible for ensuring the integrity of this Procedure and any actions taken. The Named Person should decide the course of action to be taken in cases of doubt.
The Named Person should keep a written record of all decisions taken throughout all the steps of the Procedure. The Named Person should liaise closely with the Investigator and the Chair of the Full Investigation panel to ensure that a proper record is maintained throughout the Procedure.

Annex 2 Standards of Operation

Those conducting this Procedure will endeavour to do so as to retain the confidence of both the Initiator and the Respondent.
Level – Matters should be considered and dealt with at the most appropriate level. For example, when a breach is assessed to be an honest error or a QRP that is of a non-severe or non-complex nature, the matter would normally progress to the stage of resolution via informal measures and no further; an alleged breach would normally only progress to the full investigation stage after an initial investigation had determined that there is sufficient evidence to justify this.
Timescales – Concerns raised will be addressed in the shortest possible timescale necessary to ensure a full and fair investigation. All suggestions on timescales mentioned at any stage are indicative. All stages of the operation of this procedure should be completed as soon as is practicable but must not compromise the standards and principles set out here. The aim throughout must be a thorough and fair investigation of the matters raised, conducted in a timely and transparent manner, and with appropriate confidentiality. Any delays in timescales will be communicated to all parties, providing an estimated revised date of completion.
Completion of an investigation – The University will follow this Procedure through to its natural end point as far as possible even in the event that:
1. any individual(s) concerned leaves or has left the jurisdiction of the University, either before the operation of this Procedure is concluded or before the concern(s) of research misconduct was made; or
2. the Initiator(s) withdraws the concern raised at any stage; or
3. the Respondent(s) admits the alleged breach in full or in part; or
4. the Respondent(s) admits other forms of misconduct, whether research or otherwise; and/or
5. the Initiator(s) and/or the Respondent(s) withdraws from the Procedure.
After an investigation into a concern when a Respondent is not a current member of staff/ student of the University (such as former staff or students, visiting staff, those on honorary contracts and students from other institutions conducting research on the University’s premises), the Named Person will determine the nature of any further action to be taken in relation to the investigation and its outcome. Similarly, after an investigation when a Respondent is deceased, the Named Person will determine the nature of any further action to be taken in relation to the investigation and its outcome.
Involvement of other organisations – In instances where the research is conducted at, by or with colleagues from more that one institution, the University will work with partner institutions to ensure the agreement of, and compliance with agreed standards and procedures for the conduct of collaborative research. This will include identifying routes to resolve any issues or problems that may arise as well as investigating allegations of research misconduct.
As noted above (Section 2: Scope) the University is only empowered to investigate activities that have occurred within its precincts or that have been undertaken on its behalf. If necessary, however, it may request that the employing organisation either cooperates in the investigation or undertakes its own investigation. This will also apply to researchers who are employed by other HEIs but who are undertaking research on University premises.
Where there are joint appointments, for example Clinical Academics, joint oversight of an investigation may be appropriate where the research has involved both University facilities and other facilities for example hospitals, or patients.
Counter concerns – If at any stage, a counter concern is raised about the Initiator of a concern, whether related or not to the matter being investigated, these matters will be addressed as separate matters and will be forwarded to the Named Person for consideration.
1. The Named Person will consider how these allegations should most appropriately be managed, bearing in mind the objectives of this Procedure (above). That might involve the allegations being considered under one process (and if the concerns proceed to the Initial or Full investigation stage, a joint investigation being conducted), with appropriate adjustments made to the Procedure.
Complaints – If at any stage of this Procedure, the Initiator, Respondent or other person raises a complaint about the use or operation of this Procedure or any decision or action taken, or raises any other grievance, then the Named Person will seek the advice of People, Student Services and other relevant departments of the University, in confidence, to determine an appropriate course of action.
Appropriate support – Where the Initiator, Respondent or other person involved in the investigation have difficulties at any stage of the procedure due to a disability or other accessibility issues, they should discuss this with the Named Person as soon as possible and reasonable adjustments will be made to ensure they are able to fully participate in the procedure.
Meetings – Members of staff who are Respondents or Initiators may wish to seek advice from their Trade Union representative or support from a current University of Dundee colleague, not acting in a legal capacity, and access other forms of support such as the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) and Occupational Health. Those acting as investigators, or who are managing and supporting investigations may also wish to seek support from these sources.
Evidence-sharing – Information gathered and reports generated by an investigation under this Procedure may be used in evidence by subsequent investigations under this Procedure, where a related matter is raised, or by other University processes (such as a disciplinary process). Some evidence may be required to be shared with relevant external organisations, such as funding bodies or regulators.
Confidential advice – The Named Person may seek appropriate professional, administrative, and other support to assist them in carrying their responsibilities at any stage of the Procedure. In general:
1. Research and Innovation Services (RIS) will support the Named Person in implementing the Procedure, providing advice on research-related aspects of the investigation and ensuring that the requirements of funders and other external stakeholders are met;
2. The People Directorate will provide advice and guidance on the process and conduct of investigations, including ensuring that all parties are kept appropriately informed, reminded of the need for confidentiality, and that accurate records of the investigation are maintained; and
3. The Named Person may also seek confidential advice from individuals with relevant expertise from both within and outwith the University.
Record keeping – Confidential records will be maintained on all aspects, and during all stages, of the Procedure and notes will be made of all meetings convened under the Procedure. The Named Person will retain all reports, correspondence, meeting notes and other relevant documentation.

The University record retention arrangements are informed by JISC Records Retention Management guidance. Following expiry of the retention period, the University will retain anonymised summary information of investigations. Records will only be retained beyond the normal retention period if:
1. their retention can be justified for statutory, regulatory, or legal reasons; and/or
2. the research project to which the records relate is still ongoing; and/or
3. the retention period of the research project to which the records relate is longer.
Witnesses – Both the Initiator and Respondent can suggest witnesses to Investigators or Panel members, who can decide whether these persons will be called as witnesses.
Conflicts of interest – Any party involved in the matter in any way must report conflicts of interest to the Named Person. If the Named Person is the Initiator or the Respondent or is personally associated with the work to which the matter relates or has any other conflict of interest, they will instead refer the matter to their nominated alternate who will notify the Initiator accordingly. The nominated alternate will then take on the role of the Named Person as regards the conduct of this Procedure and will be responsible for fulfilling the duties allocated to that role by this Procedure.
Communication – The University will ensure that all parties are kept appropriately informed throughout the Procedure, with clear and timely updates provided at key stages to support transparency and understanding.

Annex 3 Resolution Using Informal Measures

One potential outcome of the use of this Procedure is a conclusion that the concern(s) under investigation has some substance but, due to its relatively minor nature or because it relates to poor practice rather than to misconduct, will be addressed through education and training or another non-disciplinary approach.
The conclusion that the matter relates to an error or a QRP of a non-serious and/or non-complex nature would normally be reached by the Named Person with the assistance of the RIO during Stage 1: raising a concern or by the Investigator during Stage 2: Initial investigation. However, it is possible for such an assessment to be made during the Full Investigation Stage.
1. An Appeals Panel, as part of its work, can also determine that a concern should be addressed by informal measures due to its nature.
This annex provides general guidance on the implementation of this type of outcome. Informal resolution may be used after the concerns raised, initial investigation or full investigation stage.
Resolution through such measures - called 'informal' as opposed to resolution through a formal process of the University, such as a disciplinary process or academic regulations - can be challenging. There are many types of informal measures, and they can be applied to many potential situations. Those operating this Procedure will need to determine what informal measures follow the outcome of a particular investigation.
1. The Named Person and/or RIO may need to seek advice from colleagues to determine the best course of action and can also contact UKRIO.
2. Decisions made concerning the implementation of informal measures, and the reasoning behind those decisions, should be recorded in a brief format, in case they need to be referred to at a later date.
However informal measures are implemented, the Named Person can determine that they should be paused or ceased, and the concern examined under Stage 2: Initial investigation or other means if:
1. The organisation determines that the informal measures are not working or are not sufficient to address the concern(s); and/or
2. The Named Person determines, following concerns raised by the Initiator, Respondent or other involved person(s), that the informal measures are not working/ not sufficient; not being genuinely engaged with; or may be being exploited for the purposes of bullying or harassment.
3. Such determinations as set out in (a) and (b) above would be made by the Named Person working with the RIO and relevant colleagues at the organisation.
4. The Named Person may decide that the matter should be addressed by proceeding to Stage 2: Initial Investigation, or through other form(s) of informal measures, or through another organisational process (see section 5.4.12 in Stage 1 – Raising a concern).
Informal measures can take many forms and some examples are given below. This list should not be taken as exhaustive:
1. Education, training and other development activities.
2. Enhanced supervision/ oversight of research activities.
3. Restriction of research activities.
4. Mentoring.
5. Mediation between involved parties.
6. Awareness-raising of relevant issues of good research practice.
7. Pastoral care and support.
8. Revision of relevant research practices, systems and/or policies relating to the concern(s) in question. Such revision may be limited to a particular team or have a wider scope, covering a department or the entire organisation, and should be supported by appropriate training and awareness-raising.
The target audience of the informal measures can also vary; these may include Respondents, Initiators, other involved parties, other researchers and/or professional services staff within the University or even the University as a whole. Different informal measures may well be needed for different people.
Key features of an effective system of resolution using are:
1. The nature and scope of the informal measures should be clearly defined.
2. A designated person, working with the RIO and others as necessary, should be responsible for ensuring that the agreed measures are implemented.
3. Their duration should be clearly set out.
4. Appropriate documentation should record the implementation and outcomes of the informal measures, and any next steps.
5. Once completed, there should be discussion by the RIO and others about any learning points for the University.
The person designated to implement the informal measures can also request implementation of formal measures instead, and this should be considered by the Named Person as above.
When informal measures are concluded, involved parties (e.g., Initiator and/or Respondent; Named Person and/or RIO; line managers/ supervisors; Human Resources or Student Services) should be informed in writing, summarising the delivery and outcome(s) of the informal measures and any next steps.
Defined: the nature and scope of the informal measures should be documented in writing. This should be communicated by the Named Person or the RIO to the persons involved, in writing and including those who will be responsible for carrying out the informal measures.
Designated person: the University will determine who will implement and/or oversee the informal resolution measures, what resources will be made available to support them, and to whom they will give updates on the progress of the informal resolution measures.
Duration: the duration of informal measures will be set out at the onset, including a proposed start date, and communicated to all involved parties.
Documentation: Brief notes will be kept on: the nature and scope of the informal measures; who has responsibility for their implementation; the proposed and actual duration of the measures; and their delivery and associated outcome(s).

Figure 1 - Procedure Overview

The following is a text description of the procedure overview flowchart.

Routes by which a concern reaches the Procedure

Informal Approach – Initiator may seek confidential and impartial advice from Faculty Research Integrity Leads.
Whistle Blowing – Initiators who do not wish to raise a concern directly can do so via the University’s Whistle Blowing Policy.
Direct Approach – Initiators (internal or external to the University) can raise a concern directly by emailing the named person via [email protected].
Complaints Handling Process (CHP) – Concerns may be raised using the CHP process. The complaints manager will direct the complainant to this Procedure.

Steps in the Procedure

Raising a Concern. Initiator emails [email protected] with a summary of the concern.
Stage 1: Receipt of Concern. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) assesses the concern to determine if this Procedure is appropriate.
Decision: is this Procedure appropriate?
- If no, one of the following applies: refer to another formal process; refer to an external organisation; or the case is dismissed because it does not fall under the remit of the Procedure and does not need to be referred elsewhere.
- If yes, go to step 4.
The Named Person is informed and asks the relevant Faculty Associate VPR (F-AVPR) to arrange an initial assessment of the concern. The F-AVPR may nominate an investigator or fulfil the role themselves. This step is expected to take 10 working days from receipt of the concern.
Decision: is there a case to answer?
- If no, one of the following applies: refer to another formal process; refer to an external organisation; the concern relates to Questionable Research Practice (QRP) and is resolved using informal measures; or the case is dismissed because it does not fall under the remit of the Procedure and does not need to be referred elsewhere.
- If yes, go to step 6.
The Named Person launches a Stage 2 initial investigation into the concern. The Named Person may nominate an investigator or fulfil the role themselves.
Stage 2: Initial Investigation. Meetings are held and evidence gathered. A preliminary report is shared with the Named Person. Stages 1 and 2 together are expected to take 40 working days.
Decision: should the concern progress to the next stage?
- If no, one of the following applies: the allegation is unfounded; the matter is referred to another formal process; or the allegation is proven but relates to QRP and is resolved using informal measures.
- If yes, go to step 9.
Stage 3: Formal Investigation. The Named Person appoints an investigation panel with support from HR and RIS. The Panel assesses the evidence and holds interviews with the Complainant, Respondent and witnesses. The outcome of the investigation is sent to the Respondent and Initiator for comment on matters of factual accuracy. The Panel provides the Named Person with a report and recommendations, and the Named Person conveys the substance of the Panel’s findings and recommendations to the Initiator and Respondent. The timescale for this stage is case specific.
Decision: is the outcome appealed?
- If yes, an appeal must be made within 10 days and the Procedure moves to Stage 4.
- If no, the Procedure moves directly to Stage 5.
Stage 4: Appeals. The Respondent and the Initiator are permitted to appeal, in certain circumstances, against the findings of the Panel. An appeal should be concluded within 2 months, after which the Procedure moves to Stage 5.
Stage 5: Outcomes, Follow-Up Actions and Reporting.

Annex 4: Code of Good Practice in Research (The Code)

Principles for University researchers to follow, in line with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025).

Approved by the University Research and Innovation Committee on 27 May 2026

This Code of Good Practice in Research outlines the University of Dundee’s (the University’s) standards for ethical, rigorous and transparent research and gives effect to its commitments as a signatory to the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025). It applies to all individuals conducting or supporting research under the University’s auspices and is underpinned by the Concordat’s core principles, with clear expectations for open research, FAIR data, responsible conduct and transparent disclosure of partnerships and funding. The Vice-Principal for Research and Innovation holds institutional responsibility for research integrity, supported by defined processes for raising concerns, investigating misconduct and strengthening research culture through training, governance and annual reporting.

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025) is available on the UK Committee on Research Integrity website.

1. Purpose

This Code of Good Practice in Research sets out the principles, standards and responsibilities that underpin all research (as defined by Frascati) conducted under the auspices of the University. The University is committed to fostering a culture of research integrity and to ensuring that research is conducted in a manner that is ethical, responsible, transparent and robust, in line with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025). This Code operationalises the University’s commitments as a signatory to the Concordat and aligns with all of its principles, expectations and recommended practices. The University undertakes activities to ensure that all researchers are aware of these principles and requirements, and reports on this activity through an annual research integrity statement published on its website. This Code applies across all disciplines and all stages of the research lifecycle.

2. Scope

This Code applies to:

All staff engaged in research, research support or postgraduate student supervision
Professional services staff involved directly in supporting research activity
Postgraduate research students
Visiting researchers, emeritus and honorary staff engaged in research
Contractors and collaborators conducting research under the University’s name or using its facilities

It applies to all research activities, including proposal development, funding applications, data collection, analysis, publication, peer review and dissemination.

3. Principles of Research Integrity

The University adopts the five principles of research integrity set out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity:

Honesty; Rigour; Transparency and open communication; Care and respect; Accountability.

These principles underpin this Code and all associated research policies and procedures.

3.1 Honesty

Honesty is fundamental to all research activity and requires researchers to be truthful and transparent in their own actions and in their engagement with the work of others. It applies across the full research lifecycle, including the development of research ideas, experimental design, data generation and analysis, authorship, funding, publication, and the acknowledgement of the direct and indirect contributions of colleagues, collaborators and others. Researchers must present methods, data, interpretations and claims accurately and fairly, and must not engage in plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, misrepresentation or other practices that undermine the integrity of the research record.

3.2 Rigour

Rigour is demonstrated through the use of appropriate and robust methods, and through adherence to recognised or emerging disciplinary norms, standards of practice and agreed protocols. Researchers are expected to maintain clear, accurate and complete records of research design, procedures and results, including interim findings, to support transparency, reproducibility and the robust interpretation of research outcomes. The integrity of the research record should be protected through secure and rigorous approaches.

3.3 Transparency & Open Communication

Openness and transparency are fundamental to research integrity and apply to all those involved in the research process. Researchers should support the responsible sharing of ideas, methods, data, and results, underpinned by appropriate data management, while respecting the integrity of the research record and balancing confidentiality, intellectual property, and the potential effects of dissemination. This includes a commitment to the Principles of Open Research, ensuring that, wherever possible, research outputs, data, software, and methods are made openly available in a way that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). In addition, researchers must ensure clear disclosure of international partnerships, funding sources and any relevant commitments, and manage conflicts of interest transparently in line with the University’s research governance and Trusted Research requirements.

3.4 Care and Respect

Care and respect underpin responsible research and apply to all those involved in, or affected by, research. Researchers must act with due regard for the dignity, rights, safety and wellbeing of research participants, collaborators and communities, and for the welfare of animals, the environment and cultural heritage, in accordance with ethical, legal and professional standards.

3.5 Accountability

Accountability requires researchers, research leaders and the University to take responsibility for the conduct and outcomes of research. Researchers are expected to comply with this Code and associated policies, to declare and manage conflicts of interest, and to raise concerns about research integrity responsibly, while the University is responsible for providing appropriate governance, oversight and mechanisms for addressing concerns and strengthening research practice.

4. Definitions

4.1 Research Integrity

Research integrity refers to the conduct of research in accordance with ethical, professional and legal standards, ensuring that research is trustworthy, responsible and of high quality throughout its lifecycle.

4.2 Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

Fabrication: Making up data, results or documentation and presenting them as real
Falsification: Manipulating research processes, materials, or data in a misleading way.
Plagiarism: Using others’ work or ideas without proper acknowledgement.
Misrepresentation, including:
- Incorrect authorship or attribution
- Data, including deliberate concealment, selective reporting or misrepresentation of findings
- Undeclared conflicts of interest
- False qualifications or publication records
Failure to meet legal, ethical, and professional obligations, such as:
- Not complying with requirements for human participants, animals, or the environment
- Breaching duty of care or failing to obtain informed consent
- Misusing personal data or breaking confidentiality
- Misconduct in peer review (e.g. undisclosed conflicts, misuse of privileged information)
Improper handling of misconduct allegations, such as covering up issues, retaliating against whistleblowers, or misusing legal agreements to silence concerns

Honest error, differences of interpretation or unintentional mistakes do not constitute research misconduct, though they may require corrective action.

4.3 Questionable Research Practices (QRPs)

Questionable research practices are behaviours that fall short of best practice but may not meet the threshold of research misconduct, such as poor data management, inadequate supervision, inappropriate statistical methods or incomplete reporting.

QRPs are normally addressed through training, mentoring, supervision or management processes.

5. Roles and Responsibilities

Research misconduct is least likely to arise in an environment where good research practice (e.g. documentation of results, peer review of research, regular discussion and seminars) is encouraged and where there is adequate supervision at all relevant levels. It is a responsibility of Faculty Vice Principals and members of the executive team to convey clearly the standards and protocols for research in their relevant areas, and to ensure that adherence to those standards is a matter of course.

5.1 University of Dundee

The University holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring that effective systems are in place to support research integrity.

5.2 Senior Oversight of Research Integrity

The University’s Vice Principal for Research and Innovation has overall responsibility for research integrity, including oversight of compliance with the Concordat and reporting to institutional governance bodies.

5.3 Research Integrity Officer

The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for:

Receiving concerns or allegations relating to research integrity via [email protected]
Providing confidential advice and guidance to researchers on matters relating to research integrity
Undertaking an initial assessment of issues raised and escalating to senior management where appropriate
Supporting investigation processes to ensure they proceed within policy-defined timelines and that outcomes are appropriately recorded and tracked
Liaising with funders, regulators, journals and external bodies where appropriate

5.4 Researchers

All researchers are responsible for:

Conducting research in accordance with this Code and associated policies
Maintaining appropriate standards of record-keeping and data management
Declaring conflicts of interest
Raising concerns about research integrity promptly and responsibly

5.5 Supervisors and Research Leaders

Supervisors and research leaders have a responsibility to:

Promote good research practice
Provide appropriate mentoring and oversight
Foster a supportive and inclusive research environment

6. Research Practice Standards

Researchers are expected to:

Obtain all necessary ethical and regulatory approvals
Manage research data responsibly and securely
Ensure appropriate authorship and acknowledgement
Declare and manage conflicts of interest
Plan for the strategic dissemination of the research through open research and responsible publication practice
Maximise the reach and impact of the research beyond academia
Report research findings accurately and responsibly
Engage in peer review ethically and confidentially
Contribute to a positive research culture by providing and participating in mentorship and training related to good research practice

7. Raising Concerns About Research Integrity

Concerns about research integrity may be raised by staff, students, collaborators, research participants or members of the public.

Concerns may be reported by emailing [email protected].

Concerns may be raised anonymously, although this may limit the University’s ability to investigate fully.

The University will not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith and will take reasonable steps to protect confidentiality, subject to legal obligations.

8. Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

The University takes seriously any allegation of research misconduct and has a written procedure for investigating and resolving such allegations. Any member of the University who believes that an act of research misconduct has occurred or is occurring should email [email protected].

Allegations of research misconduct will be handled in accordance with the University’s Research Misconduct Procedure.

At a high level, the process includes:

Review of Concern, to determine whether the concern falls within scope and whether immediate action is required
Initial Investigation, to determine whether the concern raised meets the criteria for a Full Investigation to be carried out or whether alternative action(s) should be taken.
Full Investigation, where appropriate, conducted by an impartial panel with relevant expertise
Findings and actions, which may include corrections to the research record, disciplinary procedures, training or other remedial measures

Investigations will be conducted fairly, proportionately and in a timely manner, in accordance with principles of natural justice. Respondents will have the opportunity to respond to allegations and to appeal outcomes in line with University procedures.

9. Confidentiality and Information Handling

All matters relating to research integrity will be handled with due regard to:

Confidentiality
Data protection legislation
Freedom of information obligations

Information will be shared only where necessary and lawful.

10. Training, Development and Research Culture

The University recognises that research integrity is fostered through a positive research culture.

The University therefore commits to:

Providing research integrity training for staff and postgraduate researchers
Supporting mentoring and professional development, particularly for early-career researchers
Embedding research integrity expectations within supervision, leadership and research management
Reviewing research integrity culture through monitoring, feedback and learning from cases

11. Accountability, Monitoring and Reporting

The University will:

Maintain appropriate records of research integrity concerns and investigations
Monitor the effectiveness of research integrity policies and practices
Publish an annual institutional statement on research integrity, including anonymised information on allegations and investigations and actions taken to strengthen research culture

12. Collaborative and International Research

This Code applies to all research conducted under the University’s auspices, including collaborative, interdisciplinary and international research.

The University supports alignment with recognised international research integrity frameworks, including the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, where appropriate.

13. Review of the Code

This Code will be reviewed annually to ensure continued alignment with national and international standards, including updates to the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

14. Relevant University Policies

The University’s Research Governance and Policy website sets out the policies, guidance and governance procedures that staff (including University-employed and honorary staff), researchers and students must consult in order to ensure the proper conduct of research within the University. The Policy Roadmap section identifies the policies that must be read and understood before undertaking a research project, whether internally or externally funded. The website also sets out requirements and guidance relating to ethics procedures, the responsible use of metrics, trusted research, and research integrity and misconduct.

15. Acknowledgements and Bibliography

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025)
UK Research Integrity Office, 2025, UKRIO Code of Practice for Research
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
The Seven Principles of Public Life - GOV.UK
Principles of Good Research Conduct, University of St Andrews 2024

Generative AI tools were used to assist with drafting and language refinement during the preparation of this document.

From Research and Innovation

Corporate information category Research governance