Research Misconduct Policy

This policy must be read in conjunction with the Code of Practice for Research, and the Employee Code of Conduct and outlines Loughborough University's commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity in research. It aims to define research misconduct, establish procedures for reporting and investigating allegations, and ensure fair treatment for all parties involved. This policy aligns to the UK Research Integrity Office Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct.

This policy applies to all members of Loughborough University, including staff, visitors, students, and collaborators engaged in research activities.

• Research Misconduct: Includes, but is not limited to:
  • Deliberate, dangerous or negligent variation from practice which might result in unreasonable risk to humans, animals or the environment
  • Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, corruption or deception in preparing, carrying out or reporting the outcome of research including omission of data which does not fit expected results
  • Disclosure of research data which is false or misleading
  • Planning, colluding, or aiding in research misconduct, including encouraging others to participate in or conceal such misconduct
  • Unethical conduct during the conduct of research, including inappropriate treatment of participants or colleagues, or failure to secure required ethical approvals.
  • Unauthorised use, disclosure or damage to research data, apparatus, hardware/software or other substances used in carrying out research.
• Complainant is the person reporting the misconduct.
• Respondent is the person accused of misconduct
• Visitor include individuals involved in research at the University who are not regular staff members, such as emeritus professors, visiting scholars, and affiliated researchers.
• Designated Person (DP) manages the process, typically the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research & Innovation) or their alternate.
• Relevant Parties include individuals or entities who may need to be informed or consulted during the investigation process, such as the Vice-Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Director of Research and Innovation, relevant department heads, Human Resources, external funding bodies, collaborators, and legal or regulatory authorities.

• All Researchers: Ensure compliance with research integrity standards and report suspected misconduct.
• School Integrity Champions: Promote a culture of integrity and ensure awareness of this policy among staff and students.
• Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation (PVC R&I): Lead investigations into allegations of research misconduct, supported by the Research Governance Office.
• Research Quality and Policy Governance Team: Provide guidance, support, and oversight throughout the investigation.

• Allegations of research misconduct may arise through different processes (e.g. a Grievance, Whistleblowing Report) and should then be triaged to the PVC R&I.
• The complainant is encouraged to provide as much detail as possible, including supporting evidence, to ensure the allegation can be investigated. Anonymous complaints are acceptable, but can prove difficult to fully investigate if further information cannot be requested.
• Complaints are handled confidentially, with the complainant's identity initially disclosed only to the DP.
• Anonymous complaints may be considered, but further investigation typically requires a formal submission.

Upon receiving an allegation, the DP will:

• Acknowledge receipt in writing and explain the investigation process.
• Assess whether the allegations fall within the definition of research misconduct.
• If outside the scope, redirect the complaint to the appropriate procedure.
• If frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, dismiss the allegations and notify all relevant parties. This may lead to disciplinary action where the behaviour is felt to fall the standard accepted as per the University’s Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure and Ordinance XXXV.

• If the DP has a conflict of interest, the case will be referred to the alternate DP.
• The complainant and respondent can raise concerns about potential conflicts with the If the complainant or respondent raises concerns about potential conflicts with the designated person (DP), the matter will be escalated to the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for a decision.

• If immediate action is needed to prevent harm, the DP will take appropriate measures, such as notifying legal or regulatory authorities.
• Any other universities impacted or involved will be informed of the investigation's initiation.
• Interim measures, including suspension or restricted access for the respondent, may be implemented under the University’s Disciplinary Policy and Ordinance XXXV to secure evidence or mitigate risk.

If the allegations warrant further inquiry, the DP will convene a Screening Panel to arrive at one or more of the following determinations

1. Assess if the allegations are mistaken, frivolous, vexatious, or malicious and should be dismissed.
2. Determine if the case should be referred to the disciplinary process.
3. Evaluate whether issues could be addressed through training or other non-disciplinary measures.
4. Decide if the allegations are serious enough for a formal investigation.

The Screening Panel will consist of at least three Integrity Champions (or other senior staff member) with no conflicts of interest. It should aim to complete its review within 30 working days and document the findings in a written report.

If the Screening Panel recommends a formal investigation, the DP will:

1. Establish an Investigation Panel with at least three members, including at least one external member.
2. Ensure the Panel reviews all relevant evidence and interviews the complainant, respondent, and other key witnesses.
3. Provide a draft report to the complainant and respondent for factual accuracy before finalising the report.

The Investigation Panel will determine whether the allegations are upheld in full, in part, or not upheld, using the "balance of probabilities" standard.

In cases where allegations of research misconduct are deemed sufficiently serious by the Investigation Panel, the matter may be referred to Human Resources (HR) for consideration under the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure. Depending on the circumstances, the research misconduct investigation may either be suspended or conducted in parallel with the disciplinary process until both reach a conclusion.

• Allegations Upheld: If the allegations are upheld, the case may be referred to the University’s disciplinary process. Additional actions may include recommending training or supervision for the respondent.
• Allegations Not Upheld: If not upheld, measures will be taken to restore the respondent’s reputation.  If the complaint is found to be frivolous or malicious, disciplinary action may be considered against the complainant.
• The Investigation Panel’s findings will be communicated in writing to the respondent, complainant, Vice-Chancellor, and other relevant officials.

The respondent or complainant may appeal within 10 working days on grounds of:

1. New evidence
2. Procedural error
3. Disproportionate penalties

An Appeals Panel will be convened, consisting of members not involved in the original investigation, to review the appeal. The decision of the Appeals Panel is final.

• If external bodies (e.g., funders, partners, regulators) have an interest in the investigation, the DP will ensure timely and appropriate communication.
• The University may be obligated to notify these bodies of the investigation’s outcome, depending on contractual, legal, or GDPR requirements.

• All parties involved in the investigation will be treated with confidentiality.
• Whistleblowers will be protected from retaliation and discrimination for reporting misconduct in good faith in line with the University’s Whistleblowing Policy.

This policy is approved by the Ethics Committee and shared with the Research and Innovation Committee and will be reviewed every three years or sooner if significant changes occur in legislation or university practice.

For questions regarding this policy or to report misconduct, please contact:

Head of Research Innovation Quality and Policy, Loughborough University

Email: researchpolicy@lboro.ac.uk