Research Misconduct Policy

1. Purpose

1.1 Durham University is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research excellence and subscribes to the principles of the UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

1.2 This policy supports the Research Integrity Policy and Code of Good Practice which sets out clear guidance for all staff and students on the University’s policy and procedures for the maintenance of good practice in research.

1.3 This policy details examples of unacceptable conduct and explains the action which will be taken should an allegation of research misconduct be raised in relation to research conducted under the auspices of the University. It recognises that the investigation of allegations of research misconduct can involve complex issues and seeks to discharge the Organisation’s responsibilities sensitively and fairly.

1.4 This policy has been developed with reference to the UK Research Integrity Office Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (2023).

1.5 If you are aware of a potential case of research misconduct please review this document and if your concern meets the requirement for an initial investigation please contact the Durham PVC Research or alternative (as per section 4.3) in writing with the nature of the complaint.

2. Scope and Definitions

2.1 Expected standards of research conduct are set out in the Research Integrity Policy and Code of Good Practice. Examples of unacceptable conduct are set out in an Appendix Two below, and include but are not limited to:

Fabrication.
Falsification.
Plagiarism.
Misrepresentation.
Failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations.
Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct.

2.2 The process for raising a complaint applies to anyone who wishes to make an allegation of research misconduct in relation to research conducted under the auspices of the University. The person making the allegation is referred to in this policy as the Complainant. The Complainant need not be a member of the University.

2.3 The person against whom a complaint is made is referred to in this policy as the Respondent. A complaint may be raised against one or more people/Respondents.

2.4 Any allegations of research misconduct made against the University’s students will normally be treated under the procedures detailed in the General Regulations of the University, Section IV. For more complex cases, initial screening and investigation may follow the preliminary investigation outlined below.

2.5 Any allegations of research misconduct made against the University’s staff will normally be treated under the research misconduct procedure detailed below.

2.6 If the Respondent is not a current member of staff or a student of the University investigations will follow this procedure as far as possible. This includes former staff and students, visiting staff or those on honorary contracts. The University will determine the nature of any further action to be taken in relation to the investigation and its outcome on a case by case basis.

2.7 If there is a concern of malpractice related to research but which may not constitute research misconduct under this Policy, for example regarding financial, procedural or governance issues, the concerns may be raised under the University's Public Interest Disclosure Policy (Whistleblowing).

2.8 When allegations of misconduct in research are raised that include or relate to allegations of bullying or harassment, the University will determine whether those allegations are investigated under this procedure, or under the Staff Concerns Policy.

2.9 When allegations relate to financial fraud or other misuses of research funds these may be addressed under the procedures set out in the University’s Anti-Bribery and Fraud Prevention Policy rather than under this procedure.

2.10 Failure by members of the University to fully engage with the requirements of this Policy and/or any subsequent misconduct process, may be considered a disciplinary issue.

3. Research Misconduct Procedure in brief

The University’s procedures are intended to assure both those who make allegations of research misconduct, and those against whom allegations are made, that any allegations will be taken seriously and investigated. The procedures for investigating allegations are briefly summarised as follows:

Initial Complaint: An allegation of research misconduct is made to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (PVC) Research in writing.
Receipt of Allegations: The PVC Research, supported by a member of Research and Innovation Services (RIS), will assess the allegation to determine the most appropriate process to address it.
Preliminary Investigation: If it is determined that the allegation should be investigated under this procedure, they will ask the relevant Faculty Deputy Executive Dean (Research) to arrange a preliminary investigation; the Respondent is informed and given an opportunity to comment.
Formal Investigation: Where the preliminary investigation finds a prima facie case which warrants a formal investigation, the PVC Research is notified and an investigation is referred to an independent panel, who will conduct interviews with the support and guidance of HR and RIS. This investigation will follow the principles of the investigation stage of the University Disciplinary Regulations.
Outcome: If an investigation recommends that further action is warranted, the PVC Research will decide on the action to be taken in line with University policies and procedures, including the University Disciplinary Regulations.

3.2 Notes:

3.2.1 For the purposes of the procedures any reference to the PVC Research includes a senior member of their staff delegated to act on their behalf to ensure the proper conduct of these proceedings. If the PVC Research has a conflict of interest, but is not implicated in the allegation, the complaint should be made to the Deputy PVC Research who will act in place of the PVC Research in subsequent stages. In the case of a complaint against the PVC Research the complaint should be made to the Provost in writing and the Provost shall determine who shall be involved in subsequent stages.

3.2.2 If there is no disagreement concerning the facts of the allegation because the member of staff has admitted to the research misconduct or there is clear evidence to support that research misconduct took place, a preliminary investigation may not be necessary.

3.2.3 RIS are responsible for supporting the PVC Research in implementing the procedure, providing advice and guidance in relation to the research-related aspects of any investigation, and for ensuring that the requirements of funders or other external stakeholders in the research are met.

3.2.4 HR are responsible for providing relevant advice and guidance on the process and conduct of investigations, with particular reference to ensuring that all parties involved are kept informed, are reminded to maintain confidentiality and that a record of the investigation is maintained.

3.2.5 Members of staff who are Respondents or Complainants may wish to seek advice from their Trade Union representative or support from a current Durham University colleague not acting in a legal capacity and access other forms of support such as the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), Occupational Health, and Health and Wellbeing Hub – Durham University. Those acting as investigators, or who are managing or supporting investigations may also wish to seek support from these sources.

3.2.6 Where a Complainant, Respondent or other person involved in the investigation has difficulties at any stage of the procedure due to a disability, they should discuss this with the officer supporting the investigation as soon as possible and reasonable adjustments will be made to ensure they are able to fully participate in the procedure.

4. Procedure for the Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct in Research against staff of University of Durham

4.1 Responsibilities of the University

4.1.1 All allegations of research misconduct made against the University’s staff will be taken seriously and investigated. Those who raise concerns in good faith will not be penalised in any way for doing so. Findings of research misconduct by staff are normally considered under the University’s Disciplinary Regulations.

4.1.2 Where an allegation of research misconduct results at any stage in the emergence of evidence of potential fraud or irregularity in scope of the University’s Anti-Bribery and Fraud Prevention Policy, the Director of University Assurance shall be informed immediately, as detailed in that policy. The University reserves the right to contact the appropriate authorities as deemed necessary.

4.1.3 Where an allegation of research misconduct results at any stage in the emergence of evidence of any other potential criminal activity, the PVC Research shall be informed immediately and the relevant authorities may also be informed.

4.1.4 Some funding bodies have terms which require they are informed of investigations against a member of staff funded or engaged by them. RIS is responsible for ensuring that funding bodies are updated when an investigation reaches a stage at which notification is required by the funder (or when otherwise appropriate).

4.1.5 In cases of serious allegations, consideration may be given to the suspension of the Respondent in line with the requirements set out in the University’s Disciplinary Regulations, noting that a suspension is not a disciplinary measure or sanction. The University may consider alternatives to suspension, for example temporary re-deployment, additional supervision or the restriction of duties and IT access, as is deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

4.1.6 Reports, correspondence and other documentation relating to allegations and investigations will be retained confidentially in line with the University’s records retention policy. Following the destruction of such records, a brief anonymised summary of the nature of the allegation and action taken will be retained, sufficient for the University to fulfil its obligations for ongoing reporting and self-assessment under the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

4.1.7 The University reserves the right to follow this procedure, or any subsequent disciplinary action, through to its natural end point as far as possible, even in the following circumstances:

4.1.7.1 The Respondent leaving the University prior to the procedure under this Policy being concluded. If the Respondent fails to engage in the process, they will be advised that the details of the outstanding case may be disclosed to any future employer or ‘bona fide’ enquirer, and may also be passed to any appropriate regulatory or professional supervisory body.

4.1.7.2 The Complainant(s) withdrawing the allegation or otherwise withdrawing from the procedure.

4.1.7.3 The Respondents admitting other forms of misconduct, whether research misconduct or otherwise.

4.1.8 If the Respondent is a current member of University staff and the allegation involves work which was carried out whilst they were employed by or a student of another institution, RIS may make contact with that institution so that the other institution can carry out an investigation.

4.1.9 Where an investigation may cross institutional boundaries, for example in allegations relating to a collaborative project, the University will follow the principles set out in the Russell Group Statement of Cooperation in respect of cross-institutional research misconduct allegations.

4.1.10 Any member of staff who is requested to take part in conducting or supporting any stage of the procedure must inform the PVC Research if their participation involves any conflict of interest, in which case they should take no further part in the proceedings.

4.2 Confidentiality

4.2.1 Where possible, allegations will be investigated in confidence. All those who are involved in the procedures for investigating an allegation, including witnesses, representatives, and persons providing information, evidence and/or advice, have a duty to maintain confidentiality.

4.2.2 When sharing information in the context of the investigation, those responsible for the conduct of the investigation will consider both the rights of Complainants to raise concerns without fear of retribution, and the rights of Respondents to answer the allegations made against them,

4.2.3 Where a complaint is made under this process which may more properly be investigated under an alternative process, information will be shared with relevant University officers to determine the appropriate process to take it forward.

4.2.4 Where an investigation is initiated under this process, information about the complaint and relevant evidence provided by the Complainant will need to be shared with the Respondent to allow them to respond to the allegations. However, the written statement of complaint sent to the PVC Research will not normally be provided in full.

4.2.5 Reports generated by this procedure may be used in evidence by subsequent investigations under this procedure, by disciplinary procedures or by other University processes initiated as a result of investigations under this procedure. In addition, subject to data protection considerations, they may be released, in full or in part or in summary form, in reporting the matter to any appropriate external organisation.

4.2.6 If required to facilitate a full and fair investigation and/or the operation of any aspect of this Procedure, the PVC Research or those supporting or conducting investigations shall be free to seek confidential advice from persons with relevant expertise, both within the University and outside it. To address technical aspects raised by a matter, they may also employ relevant expertise and use of tools or computer software for assessing different forms of misconduct such as plagiarism, data manipulation and fabrication. Those seeking advice will, so far as is possible, anonymise the information provided to make no information available which could lead to the identification of the Complainant, Respondent or other individuals involved in the case.

4.3 Initial Complaint

4.3.1 If a member of the University or the public believes in good faith that potential research misconduct has occurred or is occurring, they should make a complaint against the researcher(s) concerning the alleged research misconduct. The complaint should be made in writing to the PVC Research, unless the circumstances set out in 3.2.1 apply. If the Complainant is unsure whether the complaint should be escalated under this process, or is unclear on the action to take, they may wish to seek advice from Research and Innovation Services.

4.3.2 The Complainant should provide as detailed a statement as possible in support of the allegation, including any relevant evidence they have available.

4.3.3 Individuals making a complaint are expected to identify themselves, as allegations raised anonymously can be significantly more difficult to address effectively. The University will not normally consider anonymous complaints. However, the University may investigate anonymous complaints, or matters identified where there is no specific Complainant (e.g. matters of concern identified in a report or other published material), taking into account the seriousness of the issue, and the likelihood of being able to carry out a meaningful investigation.

4.3.4 If requested, in exceptional circumstances, the identity of the individual making the allegation will be kept confidential for as long as practically possible, and will only be disclosed in so far as is necessary for a meaningful investigation to take place. The individual making the allegation may be asked to make a statement or attend an investigatory meeting as part of the process.

4.3.5 The University does not tolerate any retribution towards anyone raising a genuine concern. If at any stage the Complainant experiences any retribution for raising a genuine concern, this should be reported to the PVC Research (or to the Provost if the concern of retribution relates to the PVC Research). Anyone found to have deterred an individual from raising a serious concern will be treated as having committed a potential serious disciplinary offence.

4.3.6 If the allegation is deemed to be malicious, unsupported and/or not made in good faith, the PVC Research may determine whether any subsequent action against the Complainant is necessary.

4.3.7 If a Respondent or anyone else, whether involved in the matter or not, raises a counter-allegation of misconduct in research or an allegation of misconduct in research unrelated to the matter under investigation, these allegations will be addressed under this Procedure as separate matters and will be forwarded to the PVC Research for consideration.

4.4 Receipt of Allegations

4.4.1 The purpose of the Receipt of Allegations stage is to assess an allegation of research misconduct that has been received by the University, in order to determine the most appropriate process to investigate or otherwise address it. The primary aim is to determine whether the matter falls under this procedure. Its aim is NOT to investigate the substance of the matter raised.

4.4.2 The Receipt of Allegations stage will be completed as soon as is practicable upon receipt of an allegation. This will normally be within ten working days. The PVC Research or supporting officer will explain any delays to this timescale to the Complainant in writing, presenting an estimated revised date of completion.

4.4.3 If the PVC Research receives a complaint of research misconduct against a member of staff, they will notify the Research Policy team in RIS. RIS staff will work with the PVC Research to:

Acknowledge the complaint and if necessary, request additional information from the Complainant in order to assess whether the complaint should properly be assessed under the Research Misconduct process.
Identify other University officers who may need to be informed about, or involved in, a subsequent investigation, depending on the nature of the complaint. For example, these may include relevant officers in HR, Student Services, Heads of Department, or Chairs of Department or Faculty Ethics Sub-committees.
Determine the appropriate next steps, seeking advice from those with relevant expertise as needed. Possible outcomes at this stage are that the complaint:
1. falls under the definition of research misconduct and the scope of this procedure and should advance to the initial investigation stage of the procedure.
2. falls within the scope of another formal process of the University and warrants referral directly to it, including but not limited to academic misconduct, staff concerns, fraud investigation or disciplinary processes.
3. warrants referral to an external organisation, such as the research organisation under whose auspices the research in question took place.
4. presents as being related to potential poor practice rather than to misconduct, and therefore the initial approach to addressing the matter should be via informal measures such as education and training or mediation.
5. should be dismissed because it does not fall under the remit of the procedure and does not need to be referred elsewhere, in which case a clear justification should be given to the Complainant.
6. should be dismissed because it is clear that the allegation is malicious or not made in good faith.

4.4.4 It may be necessary to contact the Respondent to seek information or ask questions to carry out the above review. In this case, the contact should be in writing and the Respondent should first be informed that an allegation of research misconduct has been made concerning them and that it is being assessed to determine what if any action should be taken.

4.4.5 If the allegation and / or the research in question concern situations that require immediate action to prevent further risk or harm to staff, research participants or other persons, suffering of animals, illegal action or other significant negative effect, the PVC Research will take immediate appropriate action to ensure that any such risk or consequence is eliminated or prevented.

4.4.6 If the outcome of this stage is any of ii-vi above, the PVC Research or supporting officer will inform the Complainant of the outcome as appropriate.

4.4.7 Allegations that will proceed to the next stage of this procedure

If it is determined that the complaint should be investigated under this procedure, the PVC Research or RIS staff will:

Where appropriate, request additional information in writing from the Complainant, sufficient to allow the Respondent to comment and for a prima facie investigation to commence.
Except in cases where there is clear evidence to proceed immediately to formal investigation, for example where the individual has admitted to the research misconduct or there is other clear evidence associating the Respondent to the misconduct, notify the relevant Executive Dean or Deputy Executive Dean (Research) of the Respondent and ask them to arrange a preliminary investigation into the complaint. This preliminary investigation will normally be led by the Deputy Executive Dean (Research), with support from at least one other senior academic. If the allegation is against an Executive Dean, the PVC Research will consult the Deputy Provost to agree an appropriate lead investigator. Should any investigator have a conflict of interest then an alternative investigator shall be appointed.
Once investigators have been appointed:
1. make the Respondent aware of the allegation and the process being followed. The principles of confidentiality should be observed as outlined in 4.2. It should be made clear to the Respondent that the preliminary investigation is to determine whether any further formal investigation may be required. They should be informed of next steps and be able to raise any points which they wish to be clarified. They should also be informed of available sources of support as set out in 3.2.5.
2. Make the Complainant aware of the process being followed and next steps.
3. Both Respondent and Complainant should normally be informed of who is undertaking the investigation.
4. Advise the investigators as required. RIS may engage with funders and/or other stakeholders if considered appropriate at this stage.

4.5 Preliminary Investigation

4.5.1 The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to establish the facts of the complaint in accordance with the University Disciplinary Regulations and decide whether there is a prima facie case to answer that warrants a full formal investigation.

4.5.2 The investigators aim to complete the preliminary investigation within 15 working days following their appointment, provided this does not compromise a full and fair preliminary investigation process. Any delays to this timescale will be explained to the Complainant, the Respondent and the PVC Research in writing, presenting an estimated revised date of completion.

4.5.3 The preliminary investigation should be undertaken discreetly and be mindful of the reputation of those involved.

4.5.4 The investigators may seek additional evidence from the Complainant to support the allegation, such as research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, emails and memoranda of telephone calls. If as a Complainant you have some but not all this information, you should still make your complaint. If required, this information may be obtained from another source, such as the Head of Department. Any relevant information and evidence provided is normally shared with the Respondent, and may be used if any further formal procedures are to be taken following the preliminary investigation.

4.5.5 Those conducting the preliminary investigation will normally meet with the Complainant and the Respondent separately. They may contact in confidence anyone else they deem necessary in order to establish the facts of the case. The Respondent should be provided with the evidence (relevant parts redacted where anonymity has been requested or where other personal/sensitive/third party data has been disclosed which is not appropriate to share) and allowed the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

4.5.6 Those conducting the preliminary investigation shall consider all reasonable evidence available to decide if there is a prima facie case to answer. If necessary to decide how to proceed, the investigator may seek further evidence and confidential advice from experts in the relevant subject. It may be deemed that if there is a prima facie case to answer, the above evidence, if vast and / or complex would be best considered as part of the formal investigation.

4.5.7 Following this process, those who conducted the preliminary investigation may:

Recommend that the allegation is unfounded or that there are insufficient grounds for further investigation, on the grounds that it is mistaken, frivolous or otherwise without substance, vexatious or malicious. The PVC Research may, in consequence, dismiss the complaint and inform the Respondent and the Complainant accordingly.
Recommend that the allegation is proven, but is too minor in nature to warrant a formal investigation. The investigation may be concluded by recommending what action, if any, is required.
Recommend that the allegation is proven but should be investigated through a relevant alternative formal process.
Recommend that there is sufficient substance in the allegation to warrant a formal investigation of the complaint.
1. Where there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigation relating to student conduct, the allegation will be treated as detailed under the General Regulations of the University, Section IV.
2. Where there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigation relating to staff conduct, the allegation will be treated under the formal investigation procedure in 4.6 below.
3. Where the person is a member of staff who is registered as a student (e.g. a Research Assistant), the panel may recommend action under i. or ii. as appropriate to the nature of the specific allegation.
4. Where the allegation substantively involves both staff and students, both i. and ii. may apply. Such separate procedures will proceed in sequence, and investigation under 4.6 will normally proceed disciplinary procedures.

4.5.8 Recommendations are considered by the PVC Research and they in turn make the final decision.

4.5.9 Following the preliminary investigation, the investigator will make their preliminary findings available to the Complainant and Respondent.

4.5.10 The PVC Research or officer supporting the investigation should notify HR, Executive Dean and Head of Department of the Respondent of the outcome of the preliminary investigation.

4.6 Formal Investigation

4.6.1 If, after completing the preliminary investigation the PVC Research takes the decision that a formal investigation is necessary, the PVC Research will appoint an investigation panel to examine the allegations further. The panel should normally consist of a new lead investigator, internal to the University and with knowledge and experience of relevant research, and at least two others, including a member external to the University. At the discretion of the University, the external member may be appointed as chair. The panel should include representation both from within and outside the relevant discipline and members must have appropriate qualifications and / or experience to be able to evaluate the issues under investigation.

4.6.2 The members of the panel must not have a material conflict of interest in the case, and there will be a demonstrable separation from the normal management chain in which the alleged incident has arisen.

4.6.3 The principles of the University Disciplinary Regulations will be followed during the formal investigation and a HR representative will be allocated to support the investigators. If following this formal investigation it is decided that there is a disciplinary case to answer, this investigation will be deemed to be the relevant investigation under the University’s Disciplinary Regulations and no further investigation will be required.

4.6.4 The purpose of the formal investigation is to gather relevant information to determine whether the allegations are substantiated, and recommend any further actions where necessary to: safeguard individuals; address any misconduct which may be may found; correct the record of research, and/or safeguard the academic practices of the organisation. The panel will also determine if there is a potential disciplinary case to answer. It is not the purpose of the investigation to decide whether a disciplinary offence has occurred or what sanction may be appropriate.

4.6.5 It is important to carry out any such investigations of potential disciplinary matters without unnecessary delay to establish the facts of the case. An expected timeframe should be provided to the Respondent at the beginning of the investigation and all parties should be kept updated if any significant fluctuations are experienced. The investigation panel will determine the relevant witnesses and the evidence required which could include documentary evidence such as laboratory notebooks, papers, witness statements, computer records, emails, and any other relevant materials. The Complainant and Respondent shall be advised of the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or work colleague. For the avoidance of doubt, the work colleague must be an employee of Durham University.

4.6.6 Upon the completion of the investigation, the lead investigator, with the support and agreement of other panel members, will submit a written report to the PVC Research which will contain recommendations, including whether or not a formal disciplinary hearing should be convened and whether the case is one for which dismissal should be considered as a potential sanction. The report will detail how the proceedings were conducted, the evidence which has been evaluated, accounts of interviews, the findings of the panel, conclusions and recommendations.

4.6.7 During the investigation, the panel will keep all records and related evidence, securely and confidentially. Notes of interviews shall be shared with the interviewee(s) and where amendments/comments are made they will be held alongside the notes taken at the meeting. At the conclusion of the investigation, Human Resources will keep the records, securely and confidentially in accordance with legislation.

4.6.8 The PVC Research or supporting officer will inform the Faculty Executive Dean and Head of Department of the Respondent of the outcome.

4.6.9 A copy (or relevant sections) of the report will be shared with the Respondent and Complainant in a timely manner. After this point the Complainant will receive no further updates or communication on the case.

4.7 Outcomes of the Formal Investigation

4.7.1 If the investigator recommends that the allegations are substantiated, the PVC Research, in consultation with the Faculty Executive Dean, will decide what action needs to be taken; this may involve arranging a hearing under the University’s Disciplinary Regulation and / or other sanctions or outcomes. This may include requesting a correction of the research record and reporting any action to regulatory and statutory bodies, research participants, funders or other professional bodies as circumstances, contractual obligations and statutory requirements dictate.

4.7.2 If formal disciplinary procedures are to be convened, the University’s Disciplinary Regulation will be followed. A panel would be convened to hear the case and if dismissal is contemplated as a possible outcome of the disciplinary hearing the member of staff must be advised of this in writing when invited to attend the hearing. Any subsequent appeal against any disciplinary sanction, including dismissal, would also be considered under the Disciplinary Regulations.

4.7.3 If the allegations are dismissed the Respondent will be informed. The PVC Research, in consultation with the Faculty Executive Dean will judge whether any further action is required. Consideration will be given to any steps required to preserve the good reputation of the Respondent.

4.7.4 Once the investigation is complete, RIS is responsible for ensuring that any relevant Council / Funding Body is notified of the outcome.

4.7.5 If, after following formal disciplinary procedures, and in the event of a finding of research misconduct, where the Respondent is subject to the regulation of a professional body such as the General Medical Council, the PVC Research in consultation with the Faculty Executive Dean shall consider whether the University is obliged to, or whether it is appropriate to, inform the professional body of any finding.

4.7.6 In the event of a finding of misconduct, where the Respondent has published research to which the misconduct relates, the PVC Research in consultation with the Faculty Executive Dean shall consider whether it is appropriate to inform the journal editors or others of any finding.

4.7.7 The PVC Research, in consultation with the Faculty Executive Dean will judge whether any relevant information is required by any third parties; it is likely that the Communications Office will need to be briefed in order to respond to any media enquiries.

Related Information

Version Control

Approval date: 4 February 2025.

Approved by: Senate.

Contact for further information: research.policy@durham.ac.uk

Appendix One: Process Flow Chart

A flow chart depicting the process for handling research misconduct allegations and investigations.

Appendix Two: Research Misconduct Definition

Unacceptable conduct includes each of the following:

1. Fabrication

This includes 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

This includes inappropriately manipulating and/or selecting research processes, materials, equipment, data, imagery and/or consents.

3. Plagiarism

This includes the general misappropriation or use of others’ ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise), without acknowledgement or permission.

4. Misrepresentation

including misrepresentation of:

data, including suppression of relevant findings and/or data, or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence, presenting a flawed interpretation of data. This could include failure to reveal data/alternate points of view which do not support the original hypothesis, including withholding negative or unexpected research findings*;
involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship and/or attribution of work, and denial of authorship/attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution;
interests, including failure to declare competing interests of researchers or funders of a study;
qualifications, experience and/or credentials;
publication history, through undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication.

(*Note that publication embargos, while not regarded as suppression of data, require consideration, assessment, and formal approval by the University).

5. Failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations

for example:

not observing University ethical policy / processes and legal, ethical and other requirements for human research participants or others impacted by the research, animal subjects, or human organs or tissue used in research, or for the protection of the environment or a material culture;
breach of duty of care for humans involved in research whether deliberately, recklessly or by gross negligence, including failure to obtain appropriate informed consent or placing any of those involved in research in danger, whether as subjects; participants or associated individuals, without appropriate safeguards; this includes reputational danger where that can be anticipated;
misuse of personal data or other confidential information, including inappropriate disclosures of the identity of individuals or groups involved in research, or other breaches of confidentiality;
improper conduct in peer review of research proposals or results (including 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 peer review purposes;
failure to maintain appropriate records to enable the verification of research;
deliberately withholding data in contravention of University or funder requirements;
failure to manage data according to the research funder’s contractual terms and all relevant legislation.

6. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct

including:

failing to address possible infringements, including attempts to cover up misconduct, and reprisals against whistle-blowers;
failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct;
inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements.

This list is not exhaustive.