Research governance, ethics, and integrity

Name of Organisation

University of Sunderland.

Type of Organisation

Higher Education Institution.

Date statement approved

This statement was reviewed and approved by Chairs Action following the University Research Ethics Committee on 6 November 2025 and has been approved by Chairs Action of the University’s Research and Innovation Committee.

Named senior member of staff to oversee research integrity

Professor Matthew Campbell: matthew.campbell@sunderland.ac.uk.

Named member of staff who is the first point of contact for research integrity

Michelle Marshall: michelle.marshall@sunderland.ac.uk.

Promoting high standards of research integrity and positive research culture

Description of actions and activities undertaken

We are fully committed to advancing high-quality academic research and ensuring that all research activities undertaken by our University community, in our name, and on University premises, are done in a way that safeguards the dignity, rights, health, safety, freedom of expression, and privacy of those involved. The University takes responsibility for ensuring that our researchers have rigorously considered ethical implications, and that research is conducted to the highest standards of integrity.

Policies and systems

We have a dedicated governance structure, comprehensive policies, and supporting systems that govern research integrity and ensure our commitment to the Universities UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

Governance

• The University Research Ethics Committee (REC) provides oversight and accountability for all matters relating to research integrity reporting to the Research and Innovation Committee on behalf of the University Executive and University Board of Governors as the final reporting stages.
• REC meets on a termly basis with a membership comprising senior members of the academy and professional services. The secretariat function of this committee is delivered by a dedicated team of expert practitioners situated in the Research and Graduate School.
• REC works in conjunction with the Research and Graduate School on the implementation of institutional policies and processes to support compliance with statutory, legal, regulatory, and professional requirements.
• REC delegates the responsibility of reviewing individual ethics applications to Faculty Research Ethics Committees (FRECs).

Policies and supporting guidelines

Our full list of policies and guidelines can be found on our Research Ethics page.

Systems

• All researchers are expected to read and comply with the University’s Research Code of Practice and its underpinning policies, and, to maintain high standards and behaviours in conducting research. The University has mandated Research Ethics and Research Integrity training for staff; this is monitored by ensuring staff complete a disclaimer which confirms that they have read and understood the information presented to them.
• The University has Rules for Investigating and Resolving Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research by Members of Staff in addition to an Academic Policy for Postgraduate Researchers, and whistleblowing procedures to enable individuals to raise concerns and report incidences of misconduct, in line with our broader institutional policies (Complaints Handling Procedure, Whistleblowing and Public Interest Disclosure Policy).
• Templates are available for all forms that are required to be submitted for ethical review, which includes comprehensive guidance text to ensure adherence to ethical best practices; the form(s) ensure users specify the handling of research data (including Data Management Planning and GDPR).
• All applicants can seek advice/support from a dedicated research ethics mailbox or the REC Chair for more complex matters.
• Funder terms and conditions specifically relating to ethical, legal and research integrity issues are regularly reviewed, and changes are identified by our pre- and post-award contracts team to ensure compliance.
• Our external engagement activities are underpinned by a shared ethical engagement practice as part of our social responsibility to increase trust in research, being accountable to the public as research funders, and making research understandable and relatable to a broad audience.

Support and training

• The Research and Graduate School and the Chair of REC provide support to research staff and students on matters of research integrity in the form of bespoke training and advice across ethics, governance, and integrity. The team also provide training on areas of regulatory compliance, as well as our dedicated data protection team; the University is also redeveloping in-house training provision across research ethics and integrity to enhance delivery and better support researchers.
• The University has mandated Research Ethics and Research Integrity training for staff, subscribing to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) which provides access to dedicated resources and training, as well as in-house provision made available to staff and students. Detailed advice and guidance, alongside signposting to legislative and regulatory requirements and related University policies and procedures, are made available via our dedicated Research and Graduate School SharePoint web pages, which are reviewed and updated regularly.
• Support mechanisms are in place to foster compliance, and our dedicated research governance and ethics SharePoint pages guide researchers on research ethics issues and matters of research integrity.
• We have an online repository (SURE) which progresses the development of our open research environment; this makes available outputs which are open-access compliant. Our Open Access Policies, researcher development training, and individual support have been used to increase staff engagement in open research practices.
  • The University is engaging with Open Research practices and supports the principles of the Concordat on Open Research Data in line with our commitment to responsible use of open metrics, the University is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA). Our Research & Scholarly Communications Librarian monitors and supports compliance and best practices via our research repository.
• Development needs for staff are identified via the annual appraisal process, which aims to support and develop staff to achieve both career development objectives and performance improvements. The University also has a dedicated ‘Talent Development Team’ who publishes development opportunities open to all staff and career stages.
• The Research & Graduate School and the Research Scholarly Librarian team also provide a range of researcher development workshops including: i) SURE and Open Access Workshops, ii) Open Research Data – Gathering to Sharing iii) Copyright and your research, iv) Internal Research Funding drop in, v) Read and Publish deals, vi) What is Impact?, vii) Group Impact Coaching.

 

Culture, development and leadership

• The University is committed to creating a positive research environment that enables all researchers and research enablers to thrive and deliver high-quality, impactful research, within a culture that encourages the highest standards of rigour and integrity. Additionally, the University supports staff-led development offers including coaching and mentoring, discipline and interdisciplinary networks, and the researcher network.

Monitoring and reporting

• Research misconduct allegations for students are treated seriously and handled directly via the module team and the student casework investigation team. Academic misconduct involving staff is managed via the Academic Research Misconduct Policy for Academic Staff.
• REC submits an annual report to the Research and Innovation Committee, which includes an overview of the number of research ethics applications received. During the 24-25 academic year, REC received a total of 1876 new research ethics applications, of which 644 underwent full review.
• The University maintains a database of completion of mandatory training in Health and Safety, Data Protection, Equality and Inclusion, Research Ethics and Research Integrity.
• For Postgraduate Research including MPhil, PhD, Higher Doctorate and Doctor of Business Administration, engagement with research ethics and data management are reviewed as part of the progress review milestones; where applicable confirmation of ethical review is required as part of the examination process.

Changes and developments during the period under review

Summary of changes made during review period (1 September 2024 to 31 August 2025):

• In July 2024, the University of Sunderland enhanced its commitment to research integrity and quality by establishing and implementing a new research governance structure. This new structure is intended to enhance the oversight, assurance, and strategic development of research ethics and integrity across the institution. The proposed structure will comprise of a centralised University Research Ethics Committee (REC), along with three Faculty Research Ethics sub-committees (FRECs) and replaces the University’s Research Governance, Integrity, and Ethics Committee (URGIE). The goal is to ensure compliance to the highest levels of research ethics and integrity, streamline approval processes, and foster a positive research culture underpinned by the principles of research integrity.
• The University has recently undertaken a comprehensive review of its research policy provision and developed a revised Code of Good Research Practice alongside several supporting policies. In addition, the University is reviewing its online research system and review process to increase effectiveness and efficiency; this includes a streamlined submission and proportionate review process to reduce the administrative burden on researchers and reviewers and enhance scrutiny and our reporting and auditing capability.
• The University has developed new research integrity and research ethics online training which has been launched, and we plan on developing this further using an interactive format using our e-learning platform. The training is mandatory for all staff and students who engage in, or support, research activity at the University.
• The Graduate School have local supervisor training resources which signpost, and inform supervisors of, the Research Integrity Concordat. It is expected that PGRs have integrity discussions with supervisory teams since it underpins how researchers conduct research in our policy context. They provide links to the Research Ethics Sharepoint page from Canvas, which details information on ethics and wider governance and links to the principles of the research concordat. Ethical approaches are checked by the monitoring processes, and examiners naturally consider ethical considerations in the thesis. Furthermore, the ethics clearance form can be included in the appendices when it is useful to do so.

Reflections on progress and plans for future developments

• Annual audits of approved research ethics applications have been conducted for 24/25. Across all applications, it was confirmed that the procedures of the ethical review were followed, and the decisions made by the ethical reviewers were judged to be fair and independent; there was no evidence that procedures were not followed or that outcome decisions were in any way conflicted. No complaints or appeals were received to FRECs or REC regarding the handling of applications during the reporting period.
  • The University has enhanced the online ethics application system to reflect updated requirements, and a large proportion of the staff body have participated in the UKRIO ‘An introduction to Research Integrity’.
  • Work to develop a short online training module with an overview of requirements across integrity, culture, governance, ethics and compliance, is underway.
  • The University is keen to ensure that good research practices and behaviours are shared across our academy. Our faculty Research and Innovation Leads are responsible for promoting a positive research culture and enhancing research integrity in their respective areas. This work is overseen by the University’s Research and Innovation Committee under the accountability of its Chair, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Commercial).
  • The University has continued its membership with UKRIO and will work with them to review and update research integrity policies, processes, and training courses.

The University is revising its Academic Misconduct Policy in Research for Academic Staff, along with the Postgraduate Research Misconduct Policy. These updates will reflect the principles of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and incorporate UKRIO’s guidance on research misconduct. The aim is to seek committee approval by Spring 2026.

Addressing research misconduct

Policies and processes

Research misconduct allegations are treated seriously and handled directly via the relevant policy. There are two policies/processes relevant to misconduct specific to research, one concerned with Postgraduate Research and the second concerned with staff undertaking research and are presently the policy review. In future, all policies will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Research and Innovation Committee. The University has recently developed new policies on reporting and monitoring of research as well as a new complaints procedure.

Research environment

• The Research Ethics and Integrity Coordinator deals with online enquiries, and this often is the first line of expression of concern; complex queries are handled by the Chair of the Research Ethics Committee. If any concern is expressed around ethics or integrity the matter is initially examined and screened by an independent party, appointed by the Chair of the University’s Research Ethics Committee. The screener will recommend if there is a prima facie case and if so, the Misconduct Policy is implemented.
• As a baseline, all staff undergo specific ethics training mainly to prepare them as supervisors for undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes which involve projects where the students undertake research. Additionally, postgraduate researchers are given additional information and training.
• The University maintains a database of completion of mandatory training across several relevant areas including research ethics and integrity, health and safety, data protection, professional behaviour and relationships, and equality and inclusion. For PGRs, engagement with research ethics and data management are reviewed as part of the progress review milestones, including formal progress reports.

Key lessons

• In the past academic year, all research misconduct cases have involved students on taught courses. There were seven reported incidents involving undergraduate students collecting data without ethical approval.
• There has been a drive to ensure that staff supervising students receive the required training, and our online system is set up so that only those who have undertaken training can access the online system and supervise projects which emphasises the process and importance of ethical approval; thus, ensuring students undertake ethically sound research. In 2025, the University launching a new research ethics check procedure for summative assessments involving a research component.
• All cases are investigated and only those where a deliberate attempt to defraud has been established proceed to formal investigation and if upheld, a specific penalty would then be imposed.
• The University is keen to always seek, where possible, to learn lessons from any cases that have arisen to improve or enhance our processes and has formalised mechanisms in place (for example, staff forums and surveys).

Information on investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken

There were no reported allegations of research misconduct during the reporting period.

Name of Organisation

University of Sunderland.

Type of Organisation

Higher Education Institution.

Date statement approved

04/03/2025.

Named senior member of staff to oversee research integrity

Professor Matthew Campbell: matthew.campbell@sunderland.ac.uk.

Named member of staff who is the first point of contact for research integrity

Michelle Marshall: michelle.marshall@sunderland.ac.uk.

Promoting high standards of research integrity and positive research culture

Description of actions and activities undertaken

We are fully committed to advancing high-quality academic research and ensuring that all research activities undertaken by our University community, in our name, and on University premises, are done in a way that safeguards the dignity, rights, health, safety, freedom of expression, and privacy of those involved. The University takes responsibility for ensuring that our researchers have rigorously considered ethical implications, and that research is conducted to the highest standards of integrity.

Policies and systems

We have a dedicated governance structure, comprehensive policies, and supporting systems that govern research integrity and ensure our commitment to the Universities UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

Governance

The University Research Ethics Committee (REC) provides oversight and accountability for all matters relating to research integrity, reporting to the University Executive and University Governing Board via the Research and Innovation Committee.

REC meets on a termly basis with a membership comprising senior members of the academy and professional services. The secretariat function of this committee is delivered by a dedicated team of expert practitioners situated in the Graduate School.

REC works in conjunction with the Graduate School on the implementation of institutional policies and processes to support compliance with statutory, legal, regulatory, and professional requirements.

As of 2025, REC delegates the responsibility of reviewing individual ethics applications to Faculty Research Ethics Committees (FRECs).

Policies and supporting guidelines

Our full list of policies and guidelines can be found on our Research Ethics page.

Systems

• All researchers are expected to read and comply with the University’s Research Code of Practice and its underpinning policies, and, to maintain high standards and behaviours in conducting research. The University has mandated Research Ethics and Research Integrity training for staff; this is monitored by ensuring staff complete a disclaimer which confirms that they have read and understood the information presented to them.
• The University has rigorous academic misconduct, research misconduct, and whistleblowing procedures to enable individuals to raise concerns and report incidences of misconduct, in line with our broader institutional policies (Complaints Handling Procedure, Whistleblowing and Public Interest Disclosure Policy).
• Templates are available for all forms that are required to be submitted for ethical review, which includes comprehensive guidance text to ensure adherence to ethical best practices; the form(s) ensure users specify the handling of research data (including Data Management Planning and GDPR).
• All applicants can seek advice/support from a dedicated research ethics mailbox or REC Chair for more complex matters.
• Funder terms and conditions specifically relating to ethical, legal and research integrity issues are regularly reviewed, and changes are identified by our pre- and post-award contracts team to ensure compliance.
• Our external engagement activities are underpinned by a shared ethical engagement practice as part of our social responsibility to increase trust in research, being accountable to the public as research funders, and making research understandable and relatable to a broad audience.

Support and training

• The Research and Graduate School and the Chair of REC provide support to research staff and students on matters of research integrity in the form of bespoke training and advice across ethics, governance, and integrity. The team also provide training on areas of regulatory compliance, as well as our dedicated data protection team; the University is also redeveloping in-house training provision across research ethics and integrity to enhance delivery and better support researchers.
• The University has mandated Research Ethics and Research Integrity training for staff, providing access to online training via the Epigeum package and UKRIO resources, as well as in-house provision made available to staff and students. Detailed advice and guidance, alongside signposting to legislative and regulatory requirements and related University policies and procedures are made available via our dedicated Research and Graduate School SharePoint web pages which are reviewed and updated regularly.
• Support mechanisms are in place to foster compliance and our dedicated research governance and ethics SharePoint pages guide researchers on research ethics issues and matters of research integrity.
• We have an online repository (SURE) which progresses the development of our open research environment; this makes available outputs which are open-access compliant. Our Open Access Policies, researcher development training and individual support, have been used to increase staff engagement in open research practices.
• The University is engaging with Open Research practices and supports the principles of the Concordat on Open Research Data. Our Research and Scholarly Communications Librarian monitors and supports compliance and best practices via our research repository.
• Development needs for staff are identified via the annual appraisal process, which aims to support and develop staff to achieve both career development objectives and performance improvements. The University also has a dedicated ‘Talent Development Team’ who publishes development opportunities open to all staff and career stages.
• The Research Team and the Research Scholarly Librarian team provide a range of researcher development workshops including: i) SURE and Open Access Workshops, ii) Open Research Data – Gathering to Sharing iii) Copyright and your research, iv) Internal Research Funding drop in, v) Read and Publish deals, vi) What is Impact?, vii) Group Impact Coaching.

Culture, development and leadership

• The University is committed to creating a positive research environment that enables all researchers and research enablers to thrive and deliver high-quality, impactful research, within a culture that encourages the highest standards of rigour and integrity. This area of work is led by the Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research and Global Engagement.
• The University supports research culture enhancement through significant investment and via UKRI Enhancing Culture funding; this has supported a Vice-Chancellor-led institution-wide research culture fellowship pilot and grassroots initiatives across a broad range of areas relating to research culture.
• Additionally, the University supports staff-led development offers including journal clubs, discipline and interdisciplinary networks, and the researcher network.

Monitoring and reporting

• Research misconduct allegations for students are treated seriously and handled directly via the module team and the student casework investigation team. Academic misconduct involving staff is managed via the Academic Research Misconduct Policy for Academic Staff.
• REC submits an annual report to the Research and Innovation Committee, which includes an overview of the number of research ethics applications received. During the 23-24 academic year, REC received a total of 3754 new research ethics applications, of which 2517 were considered via the proportionate model for lower-risk projects.
• The University maintains a database of completion of mandatory training in Health and Safety, Data Protection, Equality and Inclusion, Research Ethics and Research Integrity.
• Postgraduate Research including MPhil, PhD, Higher Doctorate and Doctor of Business Administration engagement with research ethics and data management are reviewed as part of the progress review milestones; where applicable confirmation of ethical review is required as part of the examination process.

Changes and developments during the period under review

Summary of changes made during review period (1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024):

• In July 2024, the University of Sunderland enhanced its commitment to research integrity and quality by establishing and implementing a new research governance structure. This new structure is intended to enhance the oversight, assurance, and strategic development of research ethics and integrity across the institution. The proposed structure will comprise of a centralised University Research Ethics Committee (REC), along with three Faculty Research Ethics sub-committees (FRECs) and replaces the University’s Research Governance, Integrity, and Ethics Committee (URGIE). The goal is to ensure compliance to the highest levels of research ethics and integrity, streamline approval processes, and foster a positive research culture underpinned by the principles of research integrity.
• The University has recently undertaken a comprehensive review of its research policy provision and developed a revised Code of Good Research Practice alongside several supporting policies. In addition, the University is reviewing its online research system and review process to increase effectiveness and efficiency; this includes a streamlined submission and proportionate review process to reduce the administrative burden on researchers and reviewers and enhance scrutiny and our reporting and auditing capability.
• The University has developed new research integrity and research ethics online training which has been launched, and we plan on developing this further using an interactive format using our e-learning platform. The training is mandatory for all staff and students who engage in, or support, research activity at the University.

The Graduate School have local supervisor training resources which signpost, and inform supervisors of, the Research Integrity Concordat. It is expected that PGRs have integrity discussions with supervisory teams since it underpins how researchers conduct research in our policy context. They provide links to the Research Ethics Sharepoint page from Canvas, which details information on ethics and wider governance and links to the principles of the research concordat. Ethical approaches are checked by the monitoring processes, and examiners naturally consider ethical considerations in the thesis. Furthermore, the ethics clearance form can be included in the appendices when it is useful to do so.

Reflections on progress and plans for future developments

• The review of systems and processes relating to research ethics review and approval has now been completed and a new University Research Ethics governance structure has been approved and implemented. Further review and development of research ethics and integrity will be driven by the newly constituted REC, comprised of senior University office holders.
• The Terms of Reference for REC will be regularly reviewed to ensure that the Committee remains aligned and operates effectively within the new governance framework.
• The review of ethics applications will transition to the responsibility of Faculty Research Ethics subcommittees (FRECs) from REC.
• The University’s proposed new ethical decision-making framework will provide further guidance to support the processing of ethics applications more proportionately and sustainably.
• Following a suspension due to Covid-19 and resourcing, annual audits of approved research ethics applications will resume in 2025; FRECs will be responsible for providing subject-level auditing and monitoring.
• The University has enhanced the online ethics application system to reflect updated requirements, and a large proportion of the staff body have participated in the UKRIO ‘An introduction to Research Integrity’.
• Work to develop a short online training module with an overview of requirements across integrity, culture, governance, ethics and compliance, is underway.
• The University is keen to ensure that good research practices and behaviours are shared across our academy. Therefore, our newly created faculty Research and Innovation Leads will be responsible for promoting a positive research culture and enhancing research integrity in their respective areas. This work will be overseen by the University’s Research and Innovation Committee under the accountability of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Commercial (Chair of RIC).

The University has continued its membership with UKRIO and will work with them to review and update research integrity policies, processes, and training courses.

Addressing research misconduct

Policies and processes

Research misconduct allegations are treated seriously and handled directly via the relevant policy. There are two policies/processes relevant to misconduct specific to research, one concerned with postgraduate research and the second concerned with staff undertaking research. These policies were last reviewed in the academic year 2021-2022 and are at present being reviewed as part of the policy review. In future, all policies will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Research and Innovation Committee. The University has, in addition, more general policies concerned with whistleblowing, and bullying/harassment which are available via the University’s SharePoint. The University has recently developed new policies on reporting and monitoring of research as well as a new complaints procedure.

Research environment

• The Research Ethics and Integrity Coordinator deals with online enquiries, and this often is the first line of expression of concern; complex queries are handled by the Chair of the Research Ethics Committee. If any concern is expressed around ethics or integrity the matter is initially examined and screened by an independent party, appointed by the Chair of the University’s Research Ethics Committee. The screener will recommend if there is a prima facie case and if so, the Misconduct Policy is implemented.
• As a baseline, all staff undergo specific ethics training mainly to prepare them as supervisors for undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes which involve projects where the students undertake research. Additionally, postgraduate researchers are given additional information and training.
• The University maintains a database of completion of mandatory training across several relevant areas including research ethics and integrity, health and safety, data protection, professional behaviour and relationships, and equality and inclusion. For PGRs, engagement with research ethics and data management are reviewed as part of the progress review milestones, including formal progress reports.

Key lessons

• In the past academic year, all research misconduct cases have involved students on taught programmes. There were nine reported incidents involving undergraduate students collecting data without ethical approval.
• There has been a drive to ensure that staff supervising students receive the required training, and our online system is set up so that only those who have undertaken training can access the online system and supervise projects which emphasizes the process and importance of ethical approval; thus, ensuring students undertake ethically sound research. In 2025, the University is launching a new research ethics check procedure for summative assessments involving a research component.
• All cases are investigated and only those where a deliberate attempt to defraud has been established proceed to formal investigation and if upheld, a specific penalty would then be imposed.

The University is keen to always seek, where possible, to learn lessons from any cases that have arisen to improve or enhance our processes and has formalised mechanisms in place (e.g., staff forums and surveys).

Information on investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken

There were no reported allegations of research misconduct during the reporting period.

Name of Organisation

University of Sunderland.

Type of Organisation

Higher Education Institution.

Date statement approved

06/12/2023.

Named senior member of staff to oversee research integrity

Professor John Fulton: john.fulton@sunderland.ac.uk.

Named member of staff who is the first point of contact for research integrity

Andrea Howell: andrea.howell@sunderland.ac.uk.

Promoting high standards of research integrity and positive research culture

Description of current systems and culture

We seek to maintain high standards of research integrity and to promote a positive research culture through the implementation of appropriate policies and processes; excellent leadership and researcher development opportunities; as well as efficient systems for monitoring and reporting. The University is fully engaged with the principles of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (CSRI), which we use to guide the development of our research culture, including supportive RKE policies, practices and structures. We are compliant with our CSRI commitments; all staff, students and visiting researchers must adhere to the highest standards of integrity in the conduct of their research as specified in the University of Sunderland Ethics Policy for Research. Our policies are updated in line with the UK Research Integrity Office and other relevant external agency/body guidance, prior to consideration and approval by the University Research Governance Integrity and Ethics Committee (URGIE), which reports to the University Research and Innovation Group.

We signpost contacts should anyone wish to discuss or raise concerns about research misconduct, and provides clear guidance in the reporting of misconduct, in line with our Ethics Policy, Complaints Handling Procedure and Public Interest Disclosure Policy.

Upon commencement of employment, we encourage staff to undertake ethics training and recommend that they visit the Research and Knowledge Exchange SharePoint to inculcate best practices and access institutional policies and templates used to support the application process. We have established a rigorous and thorough approach to the ethical review of proposed research, which is consistent throughout the University, while recognising differing discipline approaches and conventions. Applications for funding and research and knowledge exchange activities are subject to peer review and scrutiny, including matters related to research integrity. Researchers engage with the University's ethical approval process(es) and must not conduct research without University-granted approval. Researchers follow the guidance approved by the University Research Governance Integrity and Ethics Group.

Training on Research Integrity (including research ethics and Open Access) is available via the University of Sunderland SharePoint pages and LinkedIn learning account and is encouraged for all research-active and supervising staff, to supervise ethics projects, the ethics training is mandatory, and individuals must undertake the relevant training and then complete an assessment to demonstrate their understanding. Support mechanisms are in place to foster compliance and our dedicated pages on our research governance and ethics SharePoint pages which guides researchers on issues from ethical reviews, etc. We have an online repository (SURE) which progresses the development of our open research environment; published outputs and research data which are open-access compliant. Our Open Access Policies, researcher development training and individual support, have been used to increase staff engagement in open research practices.

Changes and developments during the period under review

We have a dedicated intranet (SharePoint) containing all policies and guidelines relating to research integrity and ethics. This includes information on how to use our ethics management system, support by Epigenesys and attain approval for a project, and the circumstances in which applications should be updated or revised. Our online Research Ethics Management system manages the workflow, allocation, and review of a given research ethics application and its supporting materials.

Templates are available for all forms that are required to be submitted for ethical review, which includes comprehensive guidance text to ensure adherence to ethical best practices and the form ensures users specify the handling of research data (including Data Management Planning and GDPR). All applicants can seek advice/support from a dedicated research ethics mailbox or the University Research Governance Integrity and Ethics Committee Chair, for more complex matters. All processes and documentation are reviewed annually and revised for URGIE approval. The University is engaging with Open Research practices aligned with the Concordat on Open Research Data. Our Research and Scholarly Communications Librarian monitors and supports compliance and best practices via our research repository. We can also offer advice and support the co-design of robust and ensuring compliant research. This service is open to all researchers and recommended to ECRs. Training on Research Integrity (including research ethics, data management, GDPR for Research, and Open Access), is mandatory for all research active and supervising staff, and part of the obligatory induction for postgraduate research students. We have revised this training and now require staff to update their knowledge and understanding periodically, at least every three years. This will be monitored going forward. Furthermore, researchers will plan and maintain their professional practice/standing and knowledge of current discipline ethical practices, via professional bodies and networks.

Reflections on progress and plans for future developments

• The Culture Fellow of Research Governance, Integrity, and Ethics is undertaking rigorous checks of current set-up and suggestions for improvements going forward.
• Upgrades to online ethics system to provide more efficiency.
• The University has appointed a Research Culture Fellow to provide academic and operational support around research governance matters. A comprehensive review of the University’s research governance ecosystem has been completed focusing on identifying challenges and proposing solutions. This report recommends several improvements regarding the University’s research governance structure, policy provision, online research ethics system, and resourcing requirements. The proposed changes form part of a wider research environment review and have been allocated as priority actions for change; the results of the review and identified actions will be published in early 2024.

Case study on good practice

Using children in research is an area we have considered in some detail, and we have used our expertise to ensure that the proposals are ethically sound and are focused on the needs of each child. This example demonstrates the thinking that went into the design of the studies and how ethical principles were adapted and followed; paramount in the design of the study is ensuring that the voice of the child shines through.

This example involves studying children, aged three and above, in “early years” settings. The research aims to explore choices that children make in Early Years settings, in relation to space, objects and people. Underpinning the research design was ensuring that the children’s voice was captured. The Mosaic Approach, devised by Clark and Moss (2011) was used as a means of eliciting information, this approach uses a variety of techniques to elicit information from children and was deliberately chosen specifically as it uses a variety of techniques and approaches and thus does not overwhelm the individual child. This research is due to commence shortly and has received ethical approval.

Consent was gained from the head and class teacher and the parents; this also involved discussion and input about the methodology and the approach. For example, it was originally planned to use video recording of the children, and following discussion it was decided it was not the best approach as it could be intrusive and would raise issues about the children’s consent.

Consent will be also gained from the children. The children will be told that the researcher is interested in finding out which areas they enjoy going to the most and why, why they navigate to certain adults in the room, who they like to share their experiences with, and which objects/possessions they prefer to have with them and why. Parents/carers will also be given this information alongside their consent form. The children will also receive an information sheet and a consent form which is child-friendly, images were used to ensure understanding. The parents/carers will read these with the children, and they will record their responses.

Regular contact will be made with parents (when they collect the children and a newsletter will be given to them each term). The consent was seen not as a once-and-for-all situation but rather as something which would be ongoing, and children could withdraw or not participate at any time.

Addressing research misconduct

There are two policies/processes relevant to misconduct specific to research, one concerned with Postgraduate Research and the second concerned with staff undertaking research. These policies were last reviewed in the academic year 2021-2022 and are at present being reviewed as part of the policy review. In future, all policies will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Research and Innovation Group. The University has, in addition, more general policies concerned with whistleblowing, bullying/harassment which are available via the University’s SharePoint.

The Ethic’s administrator deals with online enquiries, and this often is the first line of expression of concern, most of the queries are easily dealt with, anything more complex is passed onto the Chair of the Research and Innovation Group. If any concern is expressed around ethics or integrity the matter is initially examined and screened by an independent party, appointed by the Chair of the University’s Integrity and Ethics Group. The screener will recommend if there is a prima facie case and if so, the Misconduct Policy is implemented.

As a baseline all staff undergo specific ethics training, mainly to prepare them as supervisors for undergraduate and postgraduate taught courses which involve projects where the students undertake research. Additionally, postgraduate researchers are given additional information and training. There are plans to develop or buy an off-the-shelf research integrity course.

In the past academic year, all the research misconduct cases involved students on taught courses. There were no incidents of misconduct from staff or postgraduate researchers. The issues highlighted all involve students collecting data without ethical approval. There has been a drive to ensure that staff supervising students receive the required training, and our online system is set up so that only those who have undertaken training can access the online system and supervise projects which emphasises the process and importance of ethical approval; thus, ensuring students undertake ethically sound research. All cases are investigated and only those where a deliberate attempt to defraud has been established would proceed to a formal investigation and if upheld, a specific penalty would then be imposed.

In the past academic year, there were 13 formal investigations of falsification and six formal investigations of a failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations. All of these allegations were upheld in part for a total of 19 formal investigations.

Introduction

The University is a signatory to the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (UUK 2012, updated 2019), the UK’s national policy statement on research integrity. As a signatory to the Concordat, the University is required to publish an annual statement outlining what we have been doing to further strengthen the integrity of research, it also provides detail on any cases of research misconduct or formal investigations that have been undertaken in 2021-22.

The University of Sunderland welcomes the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and is committed to fulfilling its five commitments:

1. Maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
2. Ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
3. Supporting a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
4. Using transparent, timely, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct when they arise.
5. Working together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.

Actions and activities to support and strengthen understanding and the application of research integrity issues

The action plan report provides a substantive update on the activities undertaken in the 2021/22 academic year and those planned for during the 2022/23 academic year at the University which helps to promote a positive culture of research integrity.

This annual statement summarises the actions and activities undertaken during the 2021/22 academic year to strengthen research integrity.

Activities undertaken

• During 2021/22 the University undertook a review of all guidance notes on the University website and transferred the content across to the Research SharePoint (Concordat action 1.2)
• A Research Ethics Space was created within LinkedIn Learning for staff to access which provides training on the ethics system, an information sheet and consent form and a presentation discussing all aspects of research ethics. This training is mandatory for all staff wishing to commence an ethics application form, supervise student projects, etc.
• The annual research integrity statement was circulated to all staff in addition to the action plan which included links to the appropriate policies and training resources.
• A review of the whistleblowing policy and adding contact details within our research and governance webpage and our membership to UKRIO.
• An annual review to check and consider new issues that emerged both internally and externally, and the development of additional guidance and news items to staff and students, frequently published within our Research SharePoint pages.

The review of research ethics policy and procedures is ongoing.

Instances, allegations and investigations of research misconduct

Allegations of misconduct processes

The University guidelines for investigating and reporting allegations of misconduct in academic research by members of staff and also for investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct in academic research by research students. These policies are included within the 2022-22 action plan to be continuously monitored and reviewed (when needed).

Reporting instances of misconduct

University guidelines are administered by the Academic Director of Postgraduate Research and Chair of the University’s Research Governance and Integrity Ethics Group and include a clear framework for the investigation and resolution of allegations of misconduct including the procedure processes.

Academic research misconduct investigations 2021/22

The University has conducted 14 (undergraduate and taught course) formal investigations of academic research misconduct during this period where the students were found to have failed to gain legal, ethical and professional obligations for their work.

Lessons learned from misconduct investigations

Overall, we have seen a significant increase in the number of ethics applications. Applicants are required to undertake an initial risk assessment to determine whether the research requires ethical approval. The introduction to the LinkedIn learning research ethics module has provided additional support to both staff and students, and we continue to see a good response rate. We also require supervisors and reviewers to undertake further training every three years and to complete an assessment to ensure they have fully understood the content of the training.

Background

In 2012, Universities UK published the document, ‘The Concordat to support research integrity’ on behalf of the UK’s major research funding organisations (including the Research Councils, HEFCE and devolved funding councils) and joint signatories to emphasise their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research. In July 2013 HEFCE as a signatory to the Concordat wrote to all HE institutions outlining the need to demonstrate their compliance with it as a condition for research funding from 2014/15. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), (an independent charity providing advice and support to the sector) recommended in 2013/14 that institutions develop a Code of Practice to strengthen compliance with requirements set out in the Concordat, supported by appropriate processes. The University’s Code of Practice was approved by the Academic Board at the beginning of 2014/15.

Under the Concordat, the University has five commitments:

1. To maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
2. To ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
3. To support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
4. To use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.
5. To work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.

The UKRIO framework recommends the following conditions to meet Concordat requirements:

• University has clear and unequivocal polices relating to research governance and Integrity and these are easily accessible.
• University research practitioners are fully aware of institutional expectations of behaviour and integrity in all areas of activity.
• These expectations are supported by robust, transparent and accessible policies and processes.
• When things go wrong, appropriate mechanisms exist to identify and deal with any concerns.

The University actively engaged in the consultation process undertaken in 2018/19 to review the Concordat. The process involving the seven signatories of the Concordat – the Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland; the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; the National Institute for Health Research; the Scottish Funding Council; UK Research and Innovation; Universities UK and the Wellcome Trust. The revised Concordat to support research integrity was published on 25 October 2019. The University commits to undertake all necessary compliance requirements outlined in the revised concordat and signatory partner correspondence when they come into force at the end of 2020.

Annual statement

We are committed to maintaining the integrity and probity of its academic research. To this end the University regards it as fundamental that all research must conform to good academic practice and that the dissemination of the results must be truthful and fair, and has accordingly adopted a Code of Practice for Research to inform staff and students of the standards of behaviour it expects. The Code of Practice is neither a set of regulations nor a process document but is a general statement of principles and expectations in relation to the standards of behaviour of those engaged in research at the University. Nevertheless, the Code does reference institutional policies and processes that underpin the University’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. All staff and students of the University are under a general obligation to act in a professional and ethical manner, and to preserve and protect the integrity and probity of research.

We are committed to compliance with the formal agreement or ‘concordat’ concerning standards and integrity in UK research. The concordat embodies commitments that will assure Government, the wider public and the international community that research in the UK continues to be underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity.

The standards of performance and behaviour expected of all those engaged in research at the University are as follows:

Guiding principles:

• Honesty
• Rigour
• Fairness
• Transparency and open communication
• Dignity and respect
• Accountability
• Ethical behaviour
• Equality and diversity

It is a requirement of the University that all staff and students involved in academic research access and observe the requirements of the Code. While establishing the general principles of research conduct, the Code cannot cover all situations and eventualities and therefore it is the responsibility of individuals to seek further guidance if in doubt. The Code is applicable to all academic staff, researchers, research students, research support staff, and research-related administrators.

The Code is not intended to limit research interest or endeavour. It does not imply a requirement for academics and students to be risk adverse in their research activity but rather to be risk aware and take responsibility for their actions. It seeks to ensure that all engaged in research are fully aware of the expectations placed upon them, are appropriately skilled to undertake their work to the highest possible standards, and establishes appropriate measures and procedures should things go wrong.

Fostering good practice in academic research is predominantly about self-regulation, supported by an environment and culture that promotes integrity at the highest level of the University. The University actively communicates the Code to all research active staff and students.

Failure of researchers to comply with the Code is likely to be subject to a formal investigation of misconduct and may result in disciplinary procedures.

Measures undertaken to strengthen compliance in 2019/20

Review of University Compliance – Revised Concordat to Support Research Integrity

The revised Concordat to support research integrity was published on 25 October 2019. This updated version of the concordat responded to recommendations set out in the Science and Technology Committee's report on research integrity, published in July 2018.

One of the key problems identified by the Committee was the absence of publicly available information on research integrity, including named points of contacts and annual statements published by research organisations.

When the concordat was published, the signatories of the Concordat agreed that there should be a 12-month period of implementation for the revised Concordat to support research integrity. The signatories indicated that this meant that employers of researchers, such as universities, must be able to demonstrate their commitment to the new concordat by 25 October 2020.

In practice, this means that all employers of researchers should be able to demonstrate that they have:

1. identified a named point of contact who will act as a first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity and ensure that contact details for this person are kept up to date and are publicly available on the institution's website.
2. provided a named point of contact or recognised an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison for whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices.
3. published an annual statement on how they are meeting the requirements of the revised Concordat.

We have published Annual Research Integrity Statements on the University website since 2016/17. Details of an appointed named contact for all queries relating to research integrity (including the disclosure of concerns) were available over the same period.

The University Research Ethics Group (UREG) will undertake a full review of the revised integrity concordat to identify opportunities to further strengthen institutional compliance as part of its 2020/21 delivery plan. In accordance with the revised compliance requirements a link to the 2019/20 integrity statement will be submitted to the Concordat Secretariat (RIsecretariat@universitiesuk.ac.uk) prior to the published deadline of 25 October 2020.

Covid-19

In response to emerging Covid-19 restrictions, the University issued advice for staff and students engaged in ongoing research involving human participants. In accordance with Government guidance to reduce social contacts, staff and research students were asked to pause until further notice ongoing or planned research data collection involving face-to-face interaction with participants. Where face-to-face interaction was still necessary due to safety monitoring, researchers were required to update their risk assessments to take account of the ongoing situation. Significant changes to previously approved projects arising from the Covid-19 restrictions required staff and students to notify the UREG of the amendments. Amendments were required to be submitted through the University’s online ethics system in the normal way. The University Executive continues to monitor the evolving Covid-19 situation and will update guidance to researchers in-line with Government and Funder advice and requirements.

Policy development

The Chair of the UREG appointment a small working group of members to review and update where required the University's research ethics policies and procedures. As a result of Covid-19 restrictions and other emerging University priorities, recommendations for revisions will now be received by the Research and Innovation Group at the beginning of 2021.

Instances, allegations and investigations of research misconduct

The responsibility for receiving allegations of misconduct in research lies with the Head of the Research Support Office. Contact details are available on external facing pages of the University website. All allegations are investigated under the processes and procedures outlines in the Code of Practice.

In 2019/20 one allegation of potential misconduct in relation to research integrity was received. The allegation was investigated in accordance with the University’s publication process and procedures. The investigation found no evidence of misconduct as defined in the Code of Practice for Research. As a result of the investigation, an Early Career Researcher was supported by members of the UREG to understand the highest standards of research design.

Background

In 2012, Universities UK published the document, ‘The Concordat to support research integrity’ on behalf of the UK’s major research funding organisations (including the Research Councils, HEFCE and devolved funding councils) and joint signatories to emphasise their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research. In July 2013 HEFCE as a signatory to the Concordat wrote to all HE institutions outlining the need to demonstrate their compliance with it as a condition for research funding from 2014/15. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), (an independent charity providing advice and support to the sector) recommended in 2013/14 that institutions develop a Code of Practice to strengthen compliance with requirements set out in the Concordat, supported by appropriate processes. The University’s Code of Practice was approved by the Academic Board at the beginning of 2014/15.

Under the Concordat, the University has five commitments:

1. To maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
2. To ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
3. To support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
4. To use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.
5. To work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.

The UKRIO framework recommends the following conditions to meet Concordat requirements:

• University has clear and unequivocal polices relating to research governance and Integrity and these are easily accessible.
• University research practitioners are fully aware of institutional expectations of behaviour and integrity in all areas of activity.
• These expectations are supported by robust, transparent and accessible policies and processes.
• When things go wrong, appropriate mechanisms exist to identify and deal with any concerns.

Annual statement

We are committed to maintaining the integrity and probity of its academic research. To this end the University regards it as fundamental that all research must conform to good academic practice and that the dissemination of the results must be truthful and fair, and has accordingly adopted a Code of Practice for Research to inform staff and students of the standards of behaviour it expects. The Code of Practice is neither a set of regulations nor a process document but is a general statement of principles and expectations in relation to the standards of behaviour of those engaged in research at the University. Nevertheless, the Code does reference institutional policies and processes that underpin the University’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. All staff and students of the University are under a general obligation to act in a professional and ethical manner, and to preserve and protect the integrity and probity of research.

The University of Sunderland is committed to compliance with the formal agreement or ‘concordat’ concerning standards and integrity in UK research. The concordat embodies commitments that will assure Government, the wider public and the international community that research in the UK continues to be underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity.

The standards of performance and behaviour expected of all those engaged in research at the University are as follows:

Guiding principles:

• Honesty
• Rigour
• Fairness
• Transparency and open communication
• Dignity and respect
• Accountability
• Ethical behaviour
• Equality and diversity

It is a requirement of the University that all staff and students involved in academic research access and observe the requirements of the Code. While establishing the general principles of research conduct, the Code cannot cover all situations and eventualities and therefore it is the responsibility of individuals to seek further guidance if in doubt. The Code is applicable to all academic staff, researchers, research students, research support staff, and research-related administrators.

The Code is not intended to limit research interest or endeavour. It does not imply a requirement for academics and students to be risk adverse in their research activity but rather to be risk aware and take responsibility for their actions. It seeks to ensure that all engaged in research are fully aware of the expectations placed upon them, are appropriately skilled to undertake their work to the highest possible standards, and establishes appropriate measures and procedures should things go wrong.

Fostering good practice in academic research is predominantly about self-regulation, supported by an environment and culture that promotes integrity at the highest level of the University. The University actively communicates the Code to all research active staff and students.

Failure of researchers to comply with the Code is likely to be subject to a formal investigation of misconduct and may result in disciplinary procedures.

Measures undertaken to strengthen compliance in 2018/19

Promotion of Code of Practice

The Head of the University Research Office and new Chair of UREG undertook a range of activity to promote the requirements of the Code of Practice to staff and student groups, including all staff communications, updates on the ‘Research Integrity’ section of the University website, attendance at Faculty Conferences and departmental/team meetings.

The Academic Handbook was revised at the start of the 2017/18 Academic Year to include a full version of the Code of Practice, (AQH-L17 – The Code of Practice for Research). All staff and students submitting an application through the University ethics system are required to acknowledge their awareness and acceptance of the ‘Code’ as part of the submission process.

Evaluation of online Ethical Review System

The University had for some time been working to introduce a new online ethical review system to replace the one taken down in 2015 due to an identified security breach. Opportunities for improving the ethical review process were also considered during this period and were embedded in the development of the system. Key features of the new system now include:

• A single online review and management process for all applications including student projects on taught courses
• Embedded advice and guidance for applicants
• An integrated risk assessment tool to identify projects that can be self-certified as low risk
• The introduction of a generic review process for low-risk projects on taught courses
• An embedded records management system
• Improved data security

It was intended that the new system would increase the transparency of the ethical review process, raise awareness of institutional policies and procedures, improve the quality of applications submitted for review and reduce delays in the approval process.

In implementing the system, it was recognised that the role of the previous University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) would change and this was captured in a revised terms of reference recorded above. To accommodate these changes and in recognition of the new faculty structure the decision was taken to disband the UREG and Faculty Deans were asked to nominate school representatives for the new University Research Ethics Group (UREG).

The new online system was procured from the University of Sheffield and implemented at the start of 2016/17 academic year, following a four-month development period. The system was procured against the following key objectives:

• To re-establish online ethical review system
• Implement processes to accommodate increasing numbers of student projects on taught courses
• Reduce decision time for applications
• Improve data security
• Establish an auditable records system
• Streamline processes to reduce the burden on the UREG
• Ensure all relevant University policies are accessible within the system

In 2018/19, the Research Ethics Group undertook an evaluation of the system to measure its effectiveness in supporting the implementation of institutional policies and procedures, and compliance against University commitments to the integrity concordat. The outcome of the evaluation is summarised as follows:

• The University of Sunderland offers a system that is both robust and is easy to manage.
• In the majority of cases, applications are evaluated and reported within the agreed response period of 10 working days.
• The system provides a mechanism to alert the administrator that the respond period has expired and an intervention is required to expedite the assessment.
• The pool of reviewers has increased supporting the process of approval.
• The standard of applications has improved, particularly from applicants on taught postgraduate and undergraduate courses, 23% of applications required compulsory changes and many of these changes were minor.
• The review found that student applications approved by their supervisor were a successful mechanism to ensure compliance and mitigate risk. It was reported that incomplete applications in the system were largely attributable to applicant intervention (for example, the student withdrew or submitted another application) rather than systemic failure.
• In line with Research Integrity guidelines, penalties for research infringement have been determined and published.
• Training opportunities for supervisors has increased, through a combination of planned and ad hoc sessions. In 2018/19 training events took place in all three university campuses, Sunderland, London and Hong Kong (via Skype).

A Data Protection Policy has been established in line with the General Data Protection Regulations, and this is available on the intranet.

Policy development

Members of the Research Ethics Group undertook a full review of research ethics policies and procedures during 2017/18. Recommendations for any revisions to university policy and procedures will received by the Research and Innovation Group on 22 April 2020.

Instances, allegations and investigations of research misconduct

The responsibility for receiving allegations of misconduct in research is with the Head of the Research Support Office. Their contact details are available on external facing pages of the University website. All allegations are investigated under the processes and procedures outlines in the Code of Practice.

In 2018/19 no allegations of potential misconduct in relation to research integrity were received or investigated.

Background

In 2012, Universities UK published the document, ‘The Concordat to support research integrity’ on behalf of the UK’s major research funding organisations (including the Research Councils, HEFCE and devolved funding councils) and joint signatories to emphasise their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research. In July 2013 HEFCE as a signatory to the Concordat wrote to all HE institutions outlining the need to demonstrate their compliance with it as a condition for research funding from 2014/15. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), (an independent charity providing advice and support to the sector) recommended in 2013/14 that institutions develop a Code of Practice to strengthen compliance with requirements set out in the Concordat, supported by appropriate processes. The University’s Code of Practice was approved by the Academic Board at the beginning of 2014/15.

Under the Concordat, the University has five commitments:

1. To maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
2. To ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
3. To support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
4. To use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.
5. To work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.

The UKRIO framework recommends the following conditions to meet Concordat requirements:

• University has clear and unequivocal polices relating to research governance and Integrity and these are easily accessible.
• University research practitioners are fully aware of institutional expectations of behaviour and integrity in all areas of activity.
• These expectations are supported by robust, transparent and accessible policies and processes.
• When things go wrong, appropriate mechanisms exist to identify and deal with any concerns.

Annual statement

We are committed to maintaining the integrity and probity of its academic research. To this end the University regards it as fundamental that all research must conform to good academic practice and that the dissemination of the results must be truthful and fair, and has accordingly adopted a Code of Practice for Research to inform staff and students of the standards of behaviour it expects. The Code of Practice is neither a set of regulations nor a process document but is a general statement of principles and expectations in relation to the standards of behaviour of those engaged in research at the University. Nevertheless, the Code does reference institutional policies and processes that underpin the University’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. All staff and students of the University are under a general obligation to act in a professional and ethical manner, and to preserve and protect the integrity and probity of research.

We are committed to compliance with the formal agreement or ‘concordat’ concerning standards and integrity in UK research. The concordat embodies commitments that will assure Government, the wider public and the international community that research in the UK continues to be underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity.

The standards of performance and behaviour expected of all those engaged in research at the University are as follows:

Guiding principles:

• Honesty
• Rigour
• Fairness
• Transparency and open communication
• Dignity and respect
• Accountability
• Ethical behaviour
• Equality and diversity

It is a requirement of the University that all staff and students involved in academic research access and observe the requirements of the Code. While establishing the general principles of research conduct, the Code cannot cover all situations and eventualities and therefore it is the responsibility of individuals to seek further guidance if in doubt. The Code is applicable to all academic staff, researchers, research students, research support staff, and research-related administrators.

The Code is not intended to limit research interest or endeavour. It does not imply a requirement for academics and students to be risk adverse in their research activity but rather to be risk aware and take responsibility for their actions. It seeks to ensure that all engaged in research are fully aware of the expectations placed upon them, are appropriately skilled to undertake their work to the highest possible standards, and establishes appropriate measures and procedures should things go wrong.

Fostering good practice in academic research is predominantly about self-regulation, supported by an environment and culture that promotes integrity at the highest level of the University. The University actively communicates the Code to all research active staff and students.

Failure of researchers to comply with the Code is likely to be subject to a formal investigation of misconduct and may result in disciplinary procedures.

Measures undertaken to strengthen compliance in 2017/18

Promotion of Code of Practice

The Head of the University Research Office and new Chair of UREG undertook a range of activity to promote the requirements of the Code of Practice to staff and student groups, including all staff communications, updates on the ‘Research Integrity’ section of the University website, attendance at Faculty Conferences and departmental/team meetings.

The Academic Handbook was revised at the start of the 2017/18 Academic Year to include a full version of the Code of Practice, (AQH-L17 – The Code of Practice for Research). All staff and students submitting an application through the University ethics system are required to acknowledge their awareness and acceptance of the ‘Code’ as part of the submission process.

Implementation of online Ethical Review System

A key focus of 2017/18 activity revolved around the institutional-wide implementation of the research ethical review system.

Communication

A broad range of activity for the promotion and communication of the systems was coordinated through the UREG, highlighting key features of the new system:

• A single online review and management process for all applications including student projects on taught courses
• Integration of research ethics and governance considerations
• Embedded advice and guidance for applicants
• An integrated risk assessment tool to identify projects that can be self-certified as low risk
• The introduction of a generic review process for low-risk projects on taught courses
• An embedded records management system
• Improved data security

Group members engaged staff involved in personal research, supervising research degree students and leading research modules on taught courses to outline the requirements and functionality of the revised review system.

Training and development

Training on the use of the system was provided to key staff and student groups throughout the 2017/18 Academic Year. UREG members and the system administrator based in the University Research Office were available to provide support to individuals. Feedback from staff groups and individuals was used to update the systems integrated guidance.

Monitoring of system usage and compliance

Reports on system use and compliance were considered by the UREG throughout 2017/18. The reports focused on a range of performance data including:

• Total numbers of staff and student applications
• Proportion of applications requiring full ethical review
• Approval and referral rates
• Review timescales

A summary of the performance data was provided in the annual UREG report to the Research and Innovation Group of the Academic Board.

Research Ethics Group

The University Research Ethics Group (UREG) was established at the start of the 2016/17 academic year and is responsible to the Research and Innovation Group (RIG) and Academic Board for:

• Ensuring that all University policies and procedures in relation to research ethics/governance are in line with best practice in the sector and meet the statutory requirements of the University
• Supporting the University’s online ethical review process
• Periodically reviewing Research Ethics Policy and reporting its findings to the RIG
• Offering guidance within the University on the interpretation of the Research Ethics Policy
• Resolving disputed or uncertain ethics approval decisions
• Periodically monitoring the effectiveness of research ethics review procedures
• Actively promoting awareness and knowledge of the Research Ethics Policy and research ethics more generally within the University
• Providing advice on any ethical matters relating to research that are referred to it from within the University

Leadership of the UREG was transferred to the newly appointed Director of Post-Graduate Research at the beginning of the 2017/18 academic year. A new role within the university staffing structure, the job description required the post-holder to lead the UREG in maintaining the highest standards of ethical research across the institution. The role provides dedicated work-loaded time to support and promote the university’s commitment to ethical research.

The UREG reports on an annual basis to the RIG. A copy of the 2017/18 report was received by RIG on 3 October 2018.

Policy development

A review of all current University research ethic policies was undertaken by a working group of the UREG during 2017/18.

Instances, allegations and investigations of research misconduct

The responsibility for receiving allegations of misconduct in research is with the Head of the Research Support Office. Their contact details are available on external facing pages of the University website. All allegations are investigated under the processes and procedures outlines in the Code of Practice.

In 2017/18 no allegations of potential misconduct in relation to research integrity were received or investigated.

Background

In 2012, Universities UK published the document, ‘The Concordat to support research integrity’ on behalf of the UK’s major research funding organisations (including the Research Councils, HEFCE and devolved funding councils) and joint signatories to emphasise their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research. In July 2013 HEFCE as a signatory to the Concordat wrote to all HE institutions outlining the need to demonstrate their compliance with it as a condition for research funding from 2014/15. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), (an independent charity providing advice and support to the sector) recommended in 2013/14 that institutions develop a Code of Practice to strengthen compliance with requirements set out in the Concordat, supported by appropriate processes. The University’s Code of Practice was approved by the Academic Board at the beginning of 2014/15.

Under the Concordat, the University has five commitments:

1. To maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
2. To ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
3. To support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
4. To use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.
5. To work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.

The UKRIO framework recommends the following conditions to meet Concordat requirements:

• University has clear and unequivocal polices relating to research governance and Integrity and these are easily accessible.
• University research practitioners are fully aware of institutional expectations of behaviour and integrity in all areas of activity.
• These expectations are supported by robust, transparent and accessible policies and processes.
• When things go wrong, appropriate mechanisms exist to identify and deal with any concerns.

Annual statement

We are committed to maintaining the integrity and probity of its academic research. To this end the University regards it as fundamental that all research must conform to good academic practice and that the dissemination of the results must be truthful and fair, and has accordingly adopted a Code of Practice for Research to inform staff and students of the standards of behaviour it expects. The Code of Practice is neither a set of regulations nor a process document but is a general statement of principles and expectations in relation to the standards of behaviour of those engaged in research at the University. Nevertheless, the Code does reference institutional policies and processes that underpin the University’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. All staff and students of the University are under a general obligation to act in a professional and ethical manner, and to preserve and protect the integrity and probity of research.

We are committed to compliance with the formal agreement or ‘concordat’ concerning standards and integrity in UK research. The concordat embodies commitments that will assure Government, the wider public and the international community that research in the UK continues to be underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity.

The standards of performance and behaviour expected of all those engaged in research at the University are as follows:

Guiding principles:

• Honesty
• Rigour
• Fairness
• Transparency and open communication
• Dignity and respect
• Accountability
• Ethical behaviour
• Equality and diversity

It is a requirement of the University that all staff and students involved in academic research access and observe the requirements of the Code. While establishing the general principles of research conduct, the Code cannot cover all situations and eventualities and therefore it is the responsibility of individuals to seek further guidance if in doubt. The Code is applicable to all academic staff, researchers, research students, research support staff, and research-related administrators.

The Code is not intended to limit research interest or endeavour. It does not imply a requirement for academics and students to be risk adverse in their research activity but rather to be risk aware and take responsibility for their actions. It seeks to ensure that all engaged in research are fully aware of the expectations placed upon them, are appropriately skilled to undertake their work to the highest possible standards, and establishes appropriate measures and procedures should things go wrong.

Fostering good practice in academic research is predominantly about self-regulation, supported by an environment and culture that promotes integrity at the highest level of the University. The University actively communicates the Code to all research active staff and students.

Failure of researchers to comply with the Code is likely to be subject to a formal investigation of misconduct and may result in disciplinary procedures.

Measures undertaken to strengthen compliance in 2016/17

Implementation of new ethical review system

The University had for some time been working to introduce a new online ethical review system to replace the one taken down in 2015 due to concerns over security. Opportunities for improving the ethical review process were also considered during this period and were embedded in the development of the system. Key features of the new system now include:

• A single online review and management process for all applications including student projects on taught courses
• Integration of research ethics and governance considerations
• Embedded advice and guidance for applicants
• An integrated risk assessment tool to identify projects that can be self-certified as low risk
• The introduction of a generic review process for low-risk projects on taught courses
• An embedded records management system
• Improved data security

It was intended that the new system would increase the transparency of the ethical review process, raise awareness of institutional policies and procedures, improve the quality of applications submitted for review and reduce delays in the approval process.

In implementing the system it was recognised that the role of the previous University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) would change and this was captured in a revised terms of reference recorded above. To accommodate these changes and in recognition of the new faculty structure the decision was taken to disband the UREC and Faculty Deans were asked to nominate school representatives for the new University Research Ethics Group (UREG).

The new online system was procured from the University of Sheffield and implemented at the start of 2016/17 academic year, following a four-month development period. The system was procured against the following key objectives:

• To re-establish online ethical review system
• Implement processes to accommodate increasing numbers of student projects on taught courses
• Reduce decision time for applications
• Improve data security
• Establish an auditable records system
• Streamline processes to reduce burden on the UREC and Faculty Sub-RECs
• Ensure all relevant University policies are accessible within the system

Governance and operational issues were also considered, highlighted in a report produced by the UREC in June 2015 and these were reflected in the Terms of Reference for the new UREG. The report highlighted the following areas for consideration:

• Redefining the role of UREC as an overarching strategic committee
• Defining the relationships between UREC and University research governance structures
• Revising the terms of reference and standard operating procedures
• A review of processes and procedures involved in ethic approval
• Development of mechanisms that enable monitoring and audit of ‘self-certified’ research projects
• Consideration of advantages/disadvantages of ‘self-certification' versus ‘fast tracking’ ethics review
• Support mechanism for applicants to ensure research is conducted in ethically appropriate manner
• Consideration on the roles UREC members, including chair and vice-chair
• Administrative support

Revised arrangements Research Ethics Group (formally Research Ethics Committee)

In implementing the new system, it was recognised that the role of the former Research Ethics Committee would change and this resulted in the formation of a new institutional structure. The University Research Ethics Group (UREG) was established at the start of the 2016/17 academic year and is responsible to the Research and Innovation Group (RIG) and Academic Board for:

• Ensuring that all University policies and procedures in relation to research ethics/governance are in line with best practice in the sector and meet the statutory requirements of the University
• Supporting the University’s online ethical review process
• Periodically reviewing Research Ethics Policy and reporting its findings to the RIG
• Offering guidance within the University on the interpretation of the Research Ethics Policy
• Resolving disputed or uncertain ethics approval decisions
• Periodically monitoring the effectiveness of research ethics review procedures
• Actively promoting awareness and knowledge of the Research Ethics Policy and research ethics more generally within the University
• Providing advice on any ethical matters relating to research that are referred to it from within the University

The UREG reports on an annual basis to the RIG. A copy of the 2016/17 report was received by RIG on 4 October.

Policy development

In October 2016 the University developed and adopted new research policy in relation to Security Sensitive Research Material which involves the registration of research projects that involve access to and/or storage of security sensitive research material. The policy covers all research activity involving the following:

• Materials that are covered by the Official Secrets Act (1989) and the Terrorism Act 2006.
• Materials that could be considered ‘extremist’ which is defined in the (Prevent) Statutory Guidance to HEIs under Section 29 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 as, 'vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'.
• Materials used for research projects commissioned by the military or under an EU security call.
• Research projects that involve the acquisition of security clearances to undertake the research.

The policy and guidance is embedded within the University’s online review system.

Promotion of the Code of Practice

Throughout 2016/17 the University continued to actively promote awareness of the Code of Practice and its requirements to staff and students. Activity included:

• Presentations and discussion with academic staff at a faculty and school level by the Head of the University Research Office
• Referencing the requirements of the ‘code’ within student handbooks (AQH-L17 – The Code of Practice for Research)
• Embedding acknowledgement and acceptance of the ‘code’ for all projects registered on the new online ethics review system
• Promoting the requirements of the ‘code’ in the induction training of students on research degree courses

Instances, allegations and investigations of research misconduct

The responsibility for receiving allegations of misconduct in research is with the Head of the University Research Office. Their contact details are available on external facing pages of the University website. All allegations are investigated under the processes and procedures outlines in the Code of Practice.

In 2016/17, one allegation of potential fraud was received and considered under the University’s rules for investigating and resolving all allegations of misconduct by members of staff. After due consideration the allegation was not upheld.