Advice to unhappy complainants in research misconduct investigations.

It can be difficult and frustrating to raise concerns or allegations about the conduct of research. This guidance is aimed at those who have or are considering raising concerns (often known as complainants, initiators, or whistleblowers).

The guidance on reporting concerns may also be of interest: Reporting research misconduct: When, how, and to whom

What is the procedure followed?

All institutions in the UK conducting research and employing researchers are required under Commitment 4 of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity to have a research misconduct procedure for the investigation of alleged research misconduct. They are also required to include information on how to report concerns on their public website, including the name of the senior individual with responsibility for research integrity (“Named Person”), the person to whom matters should be formally reported, and a confidential liaison point. UKRIO has written guidance on the Concordat, which complainants may find useful.

The procedure followed is investigatory, with the dual aims of establishing whether misconduct in research has taken place and who was responsible, and for ensuring that the research record is corrected if that is needed. It is not a disciplinary procedure, though that can follow if an individual or group is found to have committed research misconduct.

It is important to read the procedure that is being used by the institution in full. Have they operated fully in accordance with their procedure, including keeping you, the complainant, informed at the different stages, kept confidentiality, etc.?

Areas of concern

What are the areas of concern? It will be important in following up to be clear exactly what your concerns are, for example:

  • do you consider that they have unreasonably dismissed the matter at an early stage?
  • are you unhappy with
    • the operation of the procedure?
    • the membership of the panel who reviewed the complaint?
    • not taking full account of all information, etc.?

Avenues available to raise concerns

What are the avenues available in raising concerns/appealing? This will vary at different stages of the process and often formal appeals are not available at the early stages of a procedure. Sometimes at the initial investigation/screening stage, it is possible to ask the panel to reconsider, or to correct errors of fact, so it may be possible to raise concerns using the provisions available within the procedure.

If there are no options available under the procedure or the person has exhausted them, then the options available are limited. You can consider writing to the person responsible for the oversight and operation of the research misconduct procedure (often called the Named Person), setting out your concerns clearly and objectively and asking to be reconsidered in this light. You should ensure that you provide reasons why you consider the right outcome has not been reached – it is not sufficient to say that you disagree with the outcome.

It is also possible to escalate your concerns within the organisation or with a senior individual with responsibility for research governance (this might be the Director of Research, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research, or the Vice-Principal for Research, depending on the roles within the institution).

Universities will normally have a complaints or grievance procedure, so it will be worth exploring to see if those avenues are open (this will only normally be available to current staff and students). Different procedures and options will be available to staff and students, and those external to an institution. If the concerns include matters other than research conduct directly, such as bullying or harassment, then it may also be possible to raise matters under those procedures. If you believe the matter to be covered by the public interest disclosure act, you may raise the matter under the relevant university procedure – although this would normally be done at the initial stage rather than after a research misconduct investigation.

You should look out for the options for advice and support available to you, such as human resources, trade unions, student advice/welfare units, professional bodies, etc. They may be able to advise on options and rights.

General note

Whilst complainants may find the process slow, frustrating, and unresponsive, it is important to keep the tone and nature of any correspondence as objective and professional as possible. Whilst emotions can run high with matters such as these, it is important to remain calm and raise matters constructively. It is also important to provide sufficient background information and evidence where possible rather than making unsubstantiated comments based on views and opinions (however strongly held).

External to the institution

Once you have exhausted the procedures within the institution, other (relatively limited) options are available.

If the research that was the subject of the investigation was funded, you may raise a concern with the funder (although they may refer you back to the employer of the person or persons about whom the matter has been raised). Concerns about published research could be raised with the journal or publisher, although again they may expect the employer to investigate.

Students may have the option to complain to the:

When they have exhausted all avenues with their institution. These bodies will only seek to determine whether the institution followed due process in a timely manner. They will not adjudicate on the matter itself.

The UK research integrity landscape does not include an independent regulator or ombudsperson to whom appeals or complaints about the operation of a research misconduct investigation may be raised.

Written by Nicola Sainsbury, Research Integrity Manager, UKRIO

May 2023