Response from Aston University (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP,
Further to your recent letter to our Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alec Cameron, I am pleased to confirm the following:
I confirm that we make an annual statement to our Audit Committee and University Executive, which includes summary information of any misconduct cases. (The most recent report in January 2017 showed a nil return). Links to our Research Integrity Code of Conduct and Code of Practice for Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct can be found on our Research Strategy and Policy pages at http://www.aston.ac.uk/research/research-strategy-and-policy/. Our annual statement on research integrity is not publicly available at the time of writing on 30.11.17, but will be made available on these pages imminently.
Dr Nichola Seare, Chair of our University Ethics Committee, and Director of the Aston Health Research Innovation Cluster oversees research integrity and acts as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity.
Aston has a Speak up policy, which gives people access to confidential advice and support if they would like to raise a concern. This is online at http://www.aston.ac.uk/about/management-structure/university-regulation/speak-up-policy/. For research projects involving patients, we name our Director of Governance in our Participant Information Sheets. For NHS studies we also offer the PALS service at the hospital.
Should you have any queries in relation to this, please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Sally Puzey
Sally Puzey
Director of Research Strategy and Impact
BA-il-l SPA UNI\/ERSIIY
Professor Nick Foskett 20th November 2017 Vice-Chancettor
NeMon Park NeMon St Loe Bath BA2 9BN Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP t+44 (0)122s 87ss10 Chair of Science & Technology Commi tt"R [email protected] House of Commons www.bathspa.ac.uk LONDON SWlA OAA
{.t
Dear Sir
RE: Research lntegrity
I am writing to confirm that Bath Spa University complies with the following three recommendations of the UUK Concordat to Support Research lntegrity set out in your letter of 8th November as follows:
1. Annual statement to Governing Body
- we can confirm that annual statements lor 2014115, 2015116 and 20161i7 arc publicly available on the University's website at the following link: https://www.baths pa.ac.uUrese arch-and-enterprise/resea rch- stra eov linteo ritv-and-ethics/
- we can confirm that the annual statements include information on any investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken at Bath Spa University
2. We can confirm that the Vice-Provost (Research & Enterprise) is identified as the 'senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as a first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity' in the Bath Spa University Research lntegrity and Ethics Handbook which is publicly available on the University's website at the following link: https://www. bathsp a. ac. u Uresearch-and-entero rise/research- strat ov/inteoritv-and-ethics/
Contd BA-nl SPA UNI\/ERSIIY
-2-
3. We can confirm that the Vice-Provost (Research & Enterprise) is identified as the'named point of contact....to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices' in the Bath Spa University Research lntegrity and Ethics Handbook which is publicly available on the University's website at the following link: https://www. bathspa.ac. uk/research-a nd-enterprise/resea rch- strateqV/i nteq ritV-and-ethicsi
Details of research integrity contacts have now been added to our external webpages, as well as being found in the Bath Spa University Research lntegrity and Ethics Handbook.
We can confirm that in our assessment, and as stated in our annual compliance statement to the Board of Governors, we are confident that Bath Spa University meets other recommendations of the Concordat. You may be interested to note that the University Ethics Committee has currently undertaken a self-assessment exercise of our compliance using the UKRIO self-assessment tool, and has agreed an Action Plan to refresh and review some of our policies and procedures across the 217118 academic year.
Yours faithfully
Professor Nick Foskeft Vice-Chancellor (lnterim)
Response from Birmingham City University (via email) Dear Sir / Madam I am replying on behalf of Birmingham City University to the letter from Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, chair of the Science and Technology Committee, which was addressed to the Vice Chancellors of UK Universities. In Summary
• Birmingham City University is confident that it complies fully with the spirit of the 2012 “Concordat to Support Research Integrity” published by Universities UK. • Birmingham City University was subject to a review by RCUK Assurance in 2016-17, including research grants and doctoral training grants and encompassing financial and non-financial aspects. • Section 2A of the RCUK review covered Research Integrity and Research Ethics and no concerns were identified by RCUK Assurance in respect of the non-financial Terms and Conditions of RCUK funding • The University has no recorded incidents of alleged research misconduct that have required formal investigation within the last 5 years
Details of Senior Staff to Oversee Research Integrity As a result of changes to the Senior Leadership Team of the University and re-configuration of the University’s committee structures, we are re-assigning responsibilities for the different aspects of research, including Research Integrity. With effect from January 2018, responsibility for Research Integrity will be assigned as follows:
• Institutional responsibility for all aspects of research including research integrity is delegated by the Vice Chancellor Professor Phillip Plowden, to Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Julian Beer, who holds the University’s Research; Innovation and Enterprise portfolio • The University has a University Research Committee (RC) which reports to Academic Board (the BCU equivalent of Senate) on all aspects of research, chaired by Professor Beer. • The University Research Ethics, Governance and Compliance (REGCC) sub-committee of RC is responsible for the University’s policies, processes, guidance and training of researchers (staff and post-graduate research students) in all aspects of research integrity and research ethics to ensure compliance with the various concordats and expectations of research funders. • Primary responsibility for overseeing research integrity and acting as the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity rests with the University’s Director of Research, Professor Keith A Osman who chairs REGCC and heads the University’s Research Office • The named point of contact to act as a confidential liaison for whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted within the University will be Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Clare Mackie who holds the University’s academic portfolio and takes up post in January 2018. This creates the confidentiality “fire-wall” between the RIE portfolio ownership of Professor Beer to ensure independence and confidentiality for whistle-blowers on research integrity specifically. • The University also has a general policy and code of practice on whistle-blowing, for which non-financial concerns should be raised with the Vice-Chancellor; the University Secretary or the Chair of the Board of Governors.
Summary of Current Position on Concordat Compliance
• Whilst the University is confident that it complies fully with the spirit of the 2012 “Concordat to Support Research Integrity” published by Universities UK, we are currently unable to evidence that the annual statement on research integrity or details of named contacts are published on our web-site. • Through REGCC we are undertaking significant updating of institutional policies and guidelines on research ethics and research integrity. This work will be completed by July 2018 and this will include publication of an annual report on research integrity on our web-site. • The University has recently introduced mandatory online research integrity training for all new researchers including academic staff and PGRs and periodic recertification for existing researchers. • The University is currently introducing new policies, processes and systems for Research Ethics applications including research conducted by staff, PGRs and taught students. These have been piloted in our Faculty of Health, Education and Life-Sciences, where research involving human participants often requires both internal and external ethics scrutiny. The University is now rolling-out a shared common system and best practice across all four faculties. New Research Ethics Officer and Research Ethics Administrator posts have been created and appointed to in the central University Research Office team to oversee implementation and operations of the new Research Ethics systems.
I hope that this provides the information required and provided the required level of confidence that Birmingham City University is taking institutional responsibility to ensure research integrity and comply fully the Concordat to Support Research Integrity very seriously . If there is anything additional required, please do not hesitate to contact me using the details below Yours sincerely
Keith Keith A. Osman | Director of Research Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) Birmingham City University
Professor John Vinney BEng (Hons), PhD, CEng, FIMechE, FHEA [email protected]
1 December 2017
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
Dear Rt Hon Lamb MP,
Thank you for your letter dated 8 November 2017 and apologies for the delay in coming back to you. I confirm that Bournemouth University complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat mentioned in your letter.
The link below is a public facing page of our Research Blog which details the Concordat and our actions in relation to it. Specifically, in response to the three recommendations, it shows:
1. A link to download a copy of our annual integrity statement for 2016/17 (https://intranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/documentsrep/BU%20Research%20Integrity%20Statement%2016- 17.pdf) 2. Professor John Fletcher, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation as the named point of contact for matters of research integrity supported by the RKEO Office. 3. Our whistleblowing policy which provides named points of contact for different circumstances and individuals and also advises on internal and external sources of support (http://intranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/policy/Whistleblowing%20(Disclosure%20in%20the%20Public%20Int erest)%20Policy.docx).
Bournemouth University research integrity webpage: http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/researcher- toolbox/the-concordat-to-support-research-integrity/
I would also confirm that Bournemouth University adheres to the Concordat more broadly and endeavours to ensure research integrity is embedded within our practices.
Yours sincerely,
Professor John Vinney Vice-Chancellor
Response from Buckinghamshire New University (via email) In response to your letter dated 8th November addressed to our Vice-Chancellor, Professor Rebecca Bunting, I am pleased to confirm as follows: Buckinghamshire New University complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat reproduced in your letter of 8 November 2017. The most recent report and research integrity contact details are available at: https://bucks.ac.uk/research/research-ethics-and-integrity The University is committed to ensuring that all of our research is conducted to the highest standards of integrity and meets all the recommendations of the Concordat. Our annual statement includes the steps we are taking to continue to strengthen research integrity and to embed the principles of the Concordat in the research activities conducted at the University. With best regards Sarah Hunter
Canterburv Christ Chu?ch University
23 November 201 7 Direct line +44 (0)1227 182200 The Right Honourable Norman Lamb MP E-mail [email protected] Chair of Science and Technology Committee House of Commons [tro,'pnv,., London L5(9.:u,uLS SWlA OAA titi 2E Nu:l 2017 w
'D- < ?Y\ 5 -'///'\-t2 N4
Research lntegrity
Thank you for your letter dated 8 November 2017 in which you seek clarification about the position of Canterbury Christ Church University in respect of the 2Ol2 'Concordat to Support University lntegrity'.
I am pleased to confirm that the University complies will all three recommendations of the Concordat outlined in your letter. All information is available on the public facing Research pages of the institution's website.
I trust this response answers your question.
l,^. i l\ oLll u) A\ fr" nl-..t-t-.<--. St' l,t -,-'l 1 / ) 7 Professor Rama Thirunamachan dran
Vice Chancellor and Principa I
Proressor Rama Thirunamachandran Vice-Chancellor and Principal
Canterbury christ Church University Canterbury Kent CT11QU rel +44 (0)1227 761100 Fax +44 (0)1227 a6l477 negitlered Compiny No: 4793659 www.canlerburyac.uk A ComrEny limted by guarante Register€d Chanty No ,0981t6
Coventry University Priory Street N54 Coventry CV1 sFB ferephone 024 7765 7765 www.coventry.ac.uk CovenfrV Vice-Chancellor's Oflics Unrversrt! D rect Liner 424 7765 A212
Pro, John Latham Vice-Chancelor
Rt. Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair, Science and Technology Committee House of Commons fru,Pf,o,y,,u London SW1A OAA il
24th November 2017
Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP
Re: your letter dated 8s November about Research lntegrity
I am pleased to respond to the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry into research integrity. With specific regard to the three points you raise:
1 . Present a shoft annual statement to their own governing body that [...] provides a high-level statement on anv formal investiaations of research misconduct that have been undeftaken... To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statemenl should be made Dublicallv available
The Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) presents the annual Academic lntegrity Report to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Governors on an annual basis. The last presentation was at the 26 September 2017 meeting.
The report is available via the University website at: www.coventrv. ac.uuresearch/policies and is updated on an annual basis
2. ldentify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity
This is our Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) and Chair of the Coventry University Ethics Strategy Group: Professor Olivier Sparagano.
3. Provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third pafty to act as confidential liaison for whistle blowers or any other persdn wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices.
- !t!g _wtNNEF_ MODCRTI University U IVERSITY lro,Emn OF THE YEAR of the Year 8ron2e Award v fltt 20t5 The Whistleblowing Policy (which is available on our University website at http://www. coventry.ac. uk/leoal-documents/) states that the Grou p Registrar and Secretary is the designated person: Kate Quantrell (except if the concern relates to the Registrar and then the designated person would be the Vice-Chancellor ofthe University).
Finally, with regard to your general point towards the end of the letter: "your assessmenl of whether your institution meets other recommendations of the Concordat":
Coventry University is confident that we meet the other recommendations of the Concordat. lndeed, in March this year, we were assessed by VITAE as part of our re- evaluation for the HR Excellence in Research Award and were successful in retaining this award with very positive feedback from the peer reviewers.
Should the Committee require any further information on this matter from Coventry University, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Joh n Vice-Chancellor EO, Coventry University Extraordinary P or, Stellenbosch University Response from Cranfield University (via email) Dear Sir/Madam Please find below, Cranfield University’s response to the letter from Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP dated 8 November 2017: Cranfield University has signed up to the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Our research integrity policy is available on our external web site: https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/about/governance-and-policies/policies-and-regulations The “Implementing and Monitoring Research Integrity Policy” document at the same web address outlines processes to be followed and names the PVC Research and Innovation, Professor Tom Stephenson as the main contact point. Our whistle-blowing policy also names the PVC Research and Innovation as the main point of contact on matters raised relating to Research Integrity. If the PVC R & I is felt by the whistle blower to be inappropriate, representation may be made to: either to the Vice-Chancellor, University Secretary, or the Chair of the Audit Committee. If for any reason none of these individuals is deemed to be appropriate, the allegation should be made to the Chair of the University Council. To date, we have not published an annual statement on Research Integrity. However, our processes are currently under review by our Research Ethics Committee and publication will be embedded in our Annual Assurance process from 2017/18 onwards. Best regards Chris Thompson
Dr Christine Thompson Director of Research and Innovation
Research Integrity We are holding an inquiry into research integrity, and one subject of interest within this is the research sector’s progress in implementing the 2012 ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. It is my understanding that all Universities UK members signed up to the Concordat, and I am writing to seek clarification from you about whether your institution complies with its recommendations. In Particular, the Concordat recommends that employers of researchers should:
• “Present a short annual statement to their own governing body that (….) provided a high level statement on any formal investigations of research that have been undertaken …. To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publicly available” • “Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity” and • “provide a named point of contact or recognise 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” The committee recently took evidence on behalf of UUK and learned that, as of 2016, only around a quarter of UUK members publish annual reports on the number of investigations they undertake in relation to research misconduct. A more up to date figure, and a list of institutions which publish this information, would be very helpful for out inquiry. I would be grateful if you could confirm for the committee whether your institution complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat reproduced above. The committee may wish to collate and publish the information received in its final report, including non- responses, and treat your reply as written evidence to the inquiry. It would be most helpful if you could respond by 31 November 2017 with the URL of your most recent report, the page where details if the named research integrity contacts can be found, and your assessment of whether your institution meets other recommendations of the Concordat. Responses may be sent to the committee by email to xxxxxxxx If your institution does not currently publish an annual statement on research integrity or details of named contacts, I would be interested to receive a response setting out the rationale for this approach, as this will be helpful in determining what the committee should recommend in this area. More broadly, if you would like to make a written submission to the inquiry on any other points in relation to research integrity then you would be very welcome to do so. Edinburgh Napier University adheres to all the principles outlined in the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Our Code of Practice on Research Integrity has been revised in accordance to the concordat and actions have been identified and implemented to raise the profile of research integrity across the University including training for members of staff who oversee research integrity and act as a first point of contact.
Ethical approval is devolved to school level with each school having a research Integrity lead who is responsible for the process within that school including approvals and guidance. This is governed by the University Research Integrity Committee. The Convenor and Clerk of the University Committee are the named appropriate third party for anyone wishing to raise concerns about integrity of research being conducted under their auspices. All cases of alleged research misconduct are investigated in accordance to the University’s Misconduct policy and RCUK Policy, the Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct and UKRIO Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research.
Since 2014, there has been five cases of alleged research misconduct which have been investigated and have been found to have no case to answer. Prior to 2014, there was no recorded cases of alleged research misconduct.
All this information can found on our website at https://www.napier.ac.uk/research-and- innovation/research-environment/research-integrity
Response from Falmouth University (via email) Dear Mr Lamb
I am writing in response to your correspondence dated 8th November 2017 regarding an inquiry into the implementation of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Following your correspondence a full investigation was undertaken within Falmouth University, in conjunction with a review of our Ethics Policy and supporting procedures. The result of which includes the following recommendations to the University’s Research and Innovation Committee:
- Review and update all related policy documents and procedures to ensure that they sufficiently reflect each of the Concordat’s commitments.
- Strengthen the provision of training on research integrity through consideration of an online training package.
- Develop a complimentary annual statement to the Board of Governors report on the HEFCE Annual Assurance return. This will include details on any formal investigations of research misconduct. A copy of this will be made publicly available.
- Schedule an annual review of compliance with Research Integrity.
No formal investigations of research misconduct have been undertaken in the past academic year.
The Deputy Vice Chancellor, Alan Murray, is responsible for ensuring that Falmouth University is compliant with all aspects of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and is the Institutional contact point for all related enquiries.
The University’s Whistleblowing Policy outlines the policy and procedural framework of Falmouth University in respect of the reporting of concerns of wrongdoing in the public interest, and the investigation and management of such concerns. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor is the named point of contact for Whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices.
Further information about Research Integrity at Falmouth University can be found on the Research Ethics and Integrity webpage.
We trust this meets the requirements outlined in your correspondence. If you require any further information, please contact our Research and Development Office.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Anne Carlisle Vice-Chancellor
Falmouth University
Response from Goldsmiths University of London (via email) Dear Mr Lamb Goldsmiths is a relatively small constituent of the University of London, with specialism in the arts, humanities, social sciences, psychology and computing. We have been active in developing awareness of issues of research integrity in relation to the specific issues raised by these disciplines, through the appointment of a senior member of staff with specific responsibility for this area, who chairs our Research Ethics and Integrity Sub- Committee. Each department has identified a member of staff with similar responsibility at local level. We subscribe to the UKRIO Code of Good Practice for Research.
(1) We have published our annual report on research integrity for the past three years (https://www.gold.ac.uk/research/ethics/), the most recent being at https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/documents-by-section/research-and- enterprise/about/governance/2015-16_Goldsmiths-RI-statement_Council- approved_16jun16.pdf
(2) Our named senior contact is Professor Simon McVeigh, Academic Director for Research Policy, and Chair of the Research Ethics and Integrity Sub- Committee. https://www.gold.ac.uk/governance/committees/researchethicsandintegritysub- committee/
(3) Our procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct are set out at https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/documents-by-section/about-us/governance/safeguarding- research-practice.pdf. The different stages outlined here ensure that an appropriate level of enquiry is maintained.
Overall we believe that we offer a suitable range of advice and training, combined with rigorous processes in case of possible misconduct and that this is consistent with the recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. We recognise that this is an area of very considerable importance and increasing public interest, and are currently developing new ways of raising awareness of research integrity issues among all our research staff and students. We believe, however, that the framework currently in place is in broad terms sufficient to ensure the highest standards of research integrity at Goldsmiths.
Yours sincerely
Professor David Oswell Pro-Warden for Research and Enterprise Goldsmiths, University of London
Response from Guildhall School of Music and Drama (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP,
Thank you for your letter of 8 November with regard to Research Integrity. I apologise for the delayed response I have been away and only just back in the office this week. After consulting with colleagues in the Research department our response is this:
The School does not currently publish a summary of investigations into research misconduct because to date there have been none. We do have a highly functional Research Ethics Committee, which reviews all applications for ethical approval of research involving human subjects by students and staff, but the research done in our institution (historical and through artistic practice) tends by its nature to be less susceptible to the kinds of misconduct most commonly encountered. This may well change as we begin to do more work using social science and therapeutic methodologies (in, for example, Music Therapy and Arts and Health), so this inquiry is timely; we are in any case reviewing the content of the research report to our Board of Governors.
All staff and students have always had to comply with the School’s Governance Framework for Good Practice in Research, which outlines the process for investigating and dealing with research misconduct. The Framework meets the requirements of the RCUK Policy and Guidelines on the Governance of Good Research Conduct, Universities UK’s Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2012), our legal requirements, and professional guidance issued by funders and other relevant bodies.
The person responsible for this area is the Head of Research.
We do have two external lay members on our Research Ethics Committee, but we do not currently advertise their contact details on our website, so they could not reasonably be thought of as the first port of call for a whistleblower. In any case, it may be more appropriate to give this responsibility to an independent member of the Board of Governors; this, too, will form part of the current review.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely, Lynne Williams Principal
Response from Heriot-Watt University (via email) Dear Mr Lamb I refer to your letter of the 8th November about Research Integrity. Since the implementation of the Concordat Heriot-Watt University has yet to receive any accusations of a nature that requires a formal investigation of research misconduct; as a consequence we have yet to report to our University Court on this matter. Your letter has however reminded me that we should include a nil return, and I will arrange for this to happen in future. This along with the names required by your second and third bullet points will be published on the University web site. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your original letter. Yours sincerely
Professor Richard A Williams OBE FREng FTSE FRSE Principal and Vice Chancellor Heriot-Watt University
College Secretary’s Office Imperial College London
Room 4.05, Level 4, Faculty Building South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 7272 Mob: +44 (0)7714 051206 Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 8802
[email protected] www.imperial.ac.uk
John Neilson College Secretary
The Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair, Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
30 November 2017
Dear Mr Lamb,
I am writing in response to your letter of 8 November 2017 concerning the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into research integrity, and your interest in the implementation of the 2012 ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’.
Imperial College London is a signatory to the Concordat to support and promote research integrity and is committed to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research. Accordingly, the College not only provides support and guidance for researchers to ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards, it also has robust processes in place to deal with allegations of research misconduct when they arise.
With regard to the three specific recommendations for employers from the Concordat that you cite in your letter, I can confirm that Imperial College London complies with all of these recommendations
Imperial College provides an annual report on research integrity to its governing body, the Council, which includes a statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been concluded in that year. A copy of the report is also published on the College’s research integrity web pages. The latest report on research integrity can be found here.
The senior member of staff with leadership oversight for research integrity at the College is the Vice- Provost (Research and Enterprise), Professor Nick Jennings. Professor Jennings is identified as such here:
The named point of contact for any person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research conducted at Imperial College, either under the College’s research misconduct procedures, or its public interest disclosure (whistleblowing) procedures, is the College Secretary, John Neilson, who is both the
Chair of the College’s Research Misconduct Response Group, and the designated person to receive Public Interest Disclosures under the College’s whistleblowing procedures. John Neilson is identified as the first point of contact on the College’s research integrity web pages here (for research misconduct) and here (for whistleblowing).
Copies of the College’s research misconduct and whistleblowing procedures are also published on the College’s website:
Ordinance D17 – Research Misconduct
Ordinance D18 – Public Interest Disclosure
The College also complies with the other best practice recommendations on research integrity set out in the Concordat. For example, the College has clear policies on ethical approval, and dealing with conflicts of interest. It also provides considerable advice, guidance and support for researchers through its research integrity webpages. Researchers are also supported through a wide range of training opportunities available to them, many of which are aimed to promote and support the culture of integrity, good governance and best practice which underpins the world-leading research conducted at the College. The College also has clear, well-articulated and confidential mechanisms for reporting allegations of research misconduct, which provide a robust, fair and transparent process for receiving and investigating any such allegations. The College’s procedures comply not only with the provisions of the research integrity concordat, but also with the model procedures published by the UK Research Integrity Office.
I hope that your committee finds this information useful.
Yours sincerely,
John Neilson College Secretary
2 bcc: David Amigoni Clark Crawford Gemma Lowe
Response from Kingston University (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP I would like to thank you for your enquiry into our progress in implementing the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity and to assure you that we consider Kingston University to be in compliance with its recommendations. With respect to the particular recommendations:
• Kinston University presents its annual statement to the University Research Committee, to University Senate, and to the Academic Governance Committee, and has done so every year since the Concordat was first presented to University Research Committee in Nov 2013. The current statement is made publically available at http://www.kingston.ac.uk/documents/research/research-policies-and- guides/documents/Research-Integrity-Annual-Report-2016-17b.pdf • The Pro Vice Chancellor (Research, Business & Innovation) has overall responsibility for research integrity at Kingston University. Our process for dealing with integrity issues is to report first to the Dean, or if inappropriate to the Pro Vice Chancellor (Research, Business & Innovation). These are therefore first points of contact for anyone wanting more information about these processes. Full information regarding this commitment to Research Integrity is available at http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/policies-and-guides/concordat-to-support- research-integrity/ and the misconduct procedures themselves, along with other relevant resources at http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/policies-and-guides/ For anyone wishing to inquire in a less formal manner, each Faculty has an Associate Dean for Research, who holds the local remit for all issues relating to research. For those wishing alternate routes, each Faculty currently has a chair of the local ethics committee. Whilst ethics and integrity are not the same, an ethics chair would be expected to have sufficient knowledge of integrity to advise. Finally, if they wished to discuss entirely outside any local contacts, they could ask the central RBI team supporting research, where all roles are published to give contact points. http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/about-research-at-kingston/research- governance-and-support/research-support- office/ http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/about-research-at-kingston/research- governance-and-support/graduate-research-school/ • Kingston University has a full whistleblowing policy, fully approved by the Audit Committee and Board of Governors. This is published accessibly on our internal site, but not made available externally. I have therefore included a copy here. The policy lays out in detail a series of escalating people to whom to whistleblow. This would be the Line Manager in the first instance, a member of SMT if the former is inappropriate, or finally, one of certain roles from the Board of Governors. Current members of either group are easily identifiable at http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/. This arrangement is more flexible and gives more choices in potentially difficult circumstances than one sole contact. We have procedures for misconduct in research and a related policy for research students, both available at http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/policies-and-guides/ . Again, these identify escalating points of contact, to allow for bypassing someone involved in an issue. This would be the Dean, followed by the Pro Vice Chancellor (Research, Business & Innovation) for staff; they refer up to the PVC research or the DVC, respectively. For research students, it would be handled by their primary supervisor in the first instance (although any student can of course consult their other supervisors at need), then by Faculty Research Degrees Committee, followed by University Research Degrees Committee. The Graduate Research School provides support and advice.
Yours sincerely,
Steven
Professor Steven Spier Hon FRIAS BDA FHEA FRSA Vice-Chancellor
Kingston University London
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
13 December 2017
Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP,
Thank you for your letter of 8 November 2017. I can confirm that Leeds Beckett University is compliant with the three recommendations of the Concordat detailed therein.
Under our compliance framework the Board of Governors delegates oversight of investigations into allegations of misconduct in research to the Audit Committee. An annual compliance report is considered by the Audit Committee in June each year which provides an overview of compliance against the following broad range of headings including “Research Integrity”.
The excerpt from the report which relates to research integrity, considered by the Audit Committee in June 2017, is as follows:
“As a condition of any research grant, the UK Research Councils require that universities in receipt of research funding have in place policies and procedures to ensure good practice in research and the avoidance of research misconduct. Research Councils have been asked by their Audit Committees to ensure that any instances of possible research misconduct are being addressed, and that work which is funded is not exposed to any undue risk from misconduct. As part of that assurance, Research Councils UK has asked that the Audit Committee is made aware of our regulations and procedures relating to good practice and research misconduct; and that the Committee receive an annual report on any issues which may have arisen. The paragraphs below advise Audit Committee on these matters.
The following documents are published on the University website and form a framework to ensure good practice in research and clear procedures for dealing with any issues which arise in this area:
• the Policy and Procedures for Research Ethics; • Research Regulations, which detail that the circumstances of a claim of Research Misconduct will be investigated in line with the provisions of our Research Misconduct Procedure; • Research Misconduct Procedure; and • Code of Good Practice in Research.
One instance of research misconduct has been alleged during the 2016/17 academic year, and is being investigated at the time this report is being prepared. “
The report confirms there were no completed investigations and therefore no statements regarding formal investigations were uploaded to the University’s website.
The report in June 2018 will include a summary report of one completed case and this will be uploaded to our University’s public information webpage: http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/public-information/freedom-of-information/
The Secretary & Registrar is the named member of senior staff with responsibility for matters relating to research integrity and whistleblowing. This is set out in the University’s ‘Policy & Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in Research’ and ‘Whistleblowing Policy’ both of which can be found at the link below: http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/public-information/student-regulations/
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact myself or a member of my team.
Yours Sincerely
Professor Peter Slee Vice Chancellor
29 November 2017 Professor Margaret A House BSc PhD Vice-Chancellor Tel: 0113 2837 102 Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Fax: 0113 2837 200 Science and Technology Committee House of Commons LONDON SW1A 0AA
Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP
Research Integrity
Thank you for your letter of the 8th November 2017 regarding questions related to progress in implementing the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity. We support the concordat but acknowledge we are not yet completely compliant with best practice as the issue of research integrity is nested across three of our policies: our policy on Research Ethics (http://www.leedstrinity.ac.uk/Key%20Documents/Research%20Conduct%20and%20Ethics%20Code.pdf); Research Misconduct; and Whistleblowing (both cited below).
Our responses are provided under each of the three separate recommendations below:
- “Present a short annual statement to their own governing body that […] provides a high level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken… To improve accountability, and provided assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publically available”;
There have been no formal investigations of research conduct since the implementation of the concordat, so there are no high-level statements regarding research misconduct that have been made publically available so far.
- “Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact to anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity”;
Our Policy on Research Misconduct (attached – not available from our external website) names the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Professor Ray Lloyd) as the senior member of staff who oversees research misconduct, with the first point of contact regarding any allegation of research misconduct being submitted in writing to the University Research Officer (Dr Helen Morris).
Brownberrie Lane · Horsforth · Leeds · LS18 5HD ·UK Tel: +44 (0) 113 283 7100 · Fax: +44 (0) 113 2837200 www.leedstrinity.ac.uk
Response from Liverpool Hope University (via email) Dear Mr Roseveare and Mr Lamb Further to correspondence regarding the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, I am writing to confirm that Liverpool Hope University complies with the three Concordat commitments highlighted by Mr Lamb's letter in November 2017 by providing: • an annual statement on any formal investigation of research misconduct • an identified a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and act as a first point of contact for anyone wanting information on matters of research integrity • a named point of contact as confidential liaison for whistleblowers These can be found in the University's Annual Statement: http://www.hope.ac.uk/media/research/documents/Research%20Integrity%20Annual %20Statement%20201718.pdf If you require any further clarification, please don't hesitate to get back to me.
Kind regards
Derrick Dykins
Company Secretary, Proctor and Head of Committees - “Provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as a confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices”;
Leeds Trinity University’s Whistleblowing Policy is referred to directly from our Research Misconduct policy and seeks to ensure that any investigations of research misconduct are conducted promptly, whilst maintaining confidentiality, fairness, natural justice and freedom from victimisation: (http://www.leedstrinity.ac.uk/Key%20Documents/Whistleblowing%20Policy.pdf). The initial named point of contact to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers is myself, as Vice-Chancellor, with the option to meet in person or put the matter in writing. However, where the whistleblower considers the matter to be more serious, or that the Vice-Chancellor has not addressed concerns raised, or the whistleblower prefers not to raise it with the Vice-Chancellor for any reason, the whistleblower can contact either the Whistleblowing Officer (Clerk to the Board of Governors, Gill Winward) or the Chair of the Board of Governors (Mr Ian Burrell).
I trust this clarifies the University’s position but please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any further information.
Yours sincerely
Professor Margaret A House Vice-Chancellor
Attached (Policy on Research Misconduct)
Brownberrie Lane · Horsforth · Leeds · LS18 5HD ·UK Tel: +44 (0) 113 283 7100 · Fax: +44 (0) 113 2837200
www.leedstrinity.ac.uk
Professor Robin J Leatherbarrow BSc (Hons) DPhil CChem DSc FRSC FSB Professor of Chemical Biology Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Scholarship, Research and Knowledge Transfer)
05/12/17 Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Select Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Lamb,
In response you your letter to Professor Nigel Weatherill, the Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive, Liverpool John Moores University, I am pleased to supply the requested information about Research Integrity.
Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) is a dedicated supporter of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. The University has, since 2012, embedded the principles of the concordat framework into its Code of Practice for Research and a number of related operational policies and procedures.
As an employer of researchers, LJMU provides the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) with an annual statement on its compliance with the Concordat’s commitments as part of the Annual Assurance Return. The University has consistently responded positively with regards to its compliance, and to date, no incidences of any formal investigations of research misconduct have needed to be reported. The University has however worked on the assumption that its Annual Assurance Return was made publically available by HEFCE. In the process of preparing this response to your inquiry, this appears not to be the case. To remedy this, in addition to providing HEFCE with our annual statement on compliance with the concordat commitments, the University will replicate this statement within its annual Financial Statement as part of the Operating and Financial Review (OFR). The link from the HEFCE website to the LJMU webpages where this is live (Governance and charitable status, Financial statements) is https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/structure/governance- and-charitable-status. We will action this for the 2017 OFR.
You have requested the URL of the web page where contact details of the senior member of staff (Alan Welby, Director of Research & Innovation Services) who oversees research integrity and is the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity. This can be found here https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/structure/professional-services/research-and- innovation-services
The named point of contact for confidential liaison for whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research, is LJMU’s Head of Legal and Governance Services (Maria Burquest). The University procedure for managing alleged misconduct in research and the University’s Code of Practice for Research are accessible here: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about- us/public-information
Professor Robin Leatherbarrow, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Scholarship, Research and Knowledge Transfer)
Pro-Vice Chancellor’s Office, Egerton Court 2 Rodney Street, Liverpool, L1 2UA
[email protected] 0151 231 3503
Response from London South Bank University (via email) Dear Sir/ Madam, We have been asked to make a submission to Rt Hon Norman Lamb of the Science and Technology Committee concerning the implementation of the Concordat for Researcher Integrity. We confirm that:- 1. No formal cases of researcher misconduct have been reported by any academic school at LSBU for the 16/17 academic year. This will be reported in our Annual HEFCE return to our Board of Governors in December 2017 which will be available online. 2. Professor Peter Doyle, Research Environment Manager, is the main point of contact for research integrity for LSBU and this is shown on the LSBU website – see http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/research/governance 3. The Dean of School acts as the main point of contact for confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about integrity of research being conducted. We will adapt the Annual HEFCE report in December and make this publicly available on the LSBU website in December when finalised, which we believe will make us fully compliant with the Concordat. I trust this responds to the request, however if you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards
Mike Simmons
Michael Simmons Director of Corporate Affairs|Corporate Affairs|Executive Office|London South Bank University Response from Loughborough University (via email) In response to the letter (attached) concerning the 2012 concordat to support research integrity, Loughborough University offers the following information: 1. We publish an annual statement on Research Integrity which is available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/committees/ethics-approvals-human- participants/additionalinformation/researchintegrity/.
2. The latest annual publicly available statement is available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/universitycommittees/ethicsappr ovalshumanparticipantssub- committee/Research%20Integrity%20statement%202017.pdf
2. The above identifies Jackie Green as our Research Governance Officer who may in the first instance be approached with any informal queries. Alternatively, the School’s Associate Dean (Research) or the Dean may also be alerted.
3. We can also confirm that Loughborough University subscribes to the UK Research Integrity Office and its services. LU also has a whistleblowing policy available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/humanresources/downloads/FI NAL%20Whistleblowing%20Policy%20and%20Procedure.pdf
Regards
Steve
Prof Steve Rothberg FIMechE Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) Loughborough University Response from Manchester Metropolitan University (via email) Dear Rt. Hon Norman Lamb MP I write further to your letter dated 8th November 2017, in relation to the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into research integrity. I can confirm that Manchester Metropolitan University complies fully with the Universities UK “Concordat to Support Research Integrity”. In our annual statement for research integrity, which is publically available on our research web pages, we include a summary of actions that we have taken to meet the requirements of the Concordat, and keep a record of our investigations into research misconduct. The annual statement can be viewed on our website: http://www2.mmu.ac.uk/media/mmuacuk/content/documents/research/Annual-Statement-of- Research-Integrity-2017.pdf. This statement was approved by our governing body at its meeting on 24th November. For your ease, the document is also attached as a pdf. For your information, the senior contact at Manchester Metropolitan University for matters of research integrity is Professor Richard Greene, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange. Our named person for reporting allegations of research misconduct is our Chief Operating Officer and Clerk to the Board of Governors, Professor Karen Moore, as set out in our procedure for handling allegations of research misconduct. This policy is also readily available on our website at: https://www.mmu.ac.uk/policy/policy.php?id=70. If you should require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely
Malcolm Press
------Professor Malcolm Press Vice-Chancellor Manchester Metropolitan University
Research and Knowledge Transfer Office
The Burroughs Hendon
London NW4 4BT Tel: 020 8411 6061 www.mdx.ac.uk
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA 29 November 2017
Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP,
Re: Research Integrity
I write in reply to your letter of 8 November 2017 in which you ask for information on our level of compliance with recommendations contained within the Concordat for Research Integrity. I am pleased to provide the following details on behalf of Middlesex University:
Our Code of Conduct for Research (copy attached) draws on the Concordat for Research Integrity and other standards, against which any cases of alleged research misconduct would be judged. Section 10 of our Principles and Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct (page 19 of attached) states:
‘The University Ethics Committee will be responsible for the annual monitoring of the number of allegations received by the University, for reviewing any issues raised, and for evaluating the effectiveness of the procedures adopted in addressing them. This will in part be based on information provided by the Deans in their annual reports to the University Ethics Committee. These annual reports will include the number of allegations of research misconduct received in the School, details on how the allegations and associated issues were addressed, and the effectiveness of the procedures adopted in addressing them.’
Ethics Committee reports to Academic Board, and to governors through this route, but it is not our practice to further collate this information in the form of a single annual summary. We do not routinely report investigations publically, but all agendas, papers and minutes of our various committees and boards are made available via our intranet. Any proven issues of serious misconduct would be referred to the appropriate external body (e.g. police if adjudged to be criminal; HSE; etc.) as part of our procedures. Likewise, if issues such as falsification, misrepresentation or plagiarism were identified in any research output, the relevant journals, or other outlets, would be notified in order that the offending item could be withdrawn and the affected research community alerted. Hence, in all cases of proven serious research misconduct, details would become publically available. In other, less serious cases (e.g. failure to comply with our internal policy on Open Access – except where required as a condition of funding) this, quite properly in our view, would be dealt with as a matter of internal discipline that would not warrant public disclosure.
We hence operate on a scale of actions and responses appropriate to the seriousness of the misconduct. We do not believe that public disclosure is appropriate in all cases and certainly not for cases where a formal investigation may have been instigated but where the individual concerned was completely exonerated.
We identify two senior staff (the Director of Research and Director of Knowledge Transfer, within the same functional unit) to act as the first point of contact for any member of staff or research student wanting information on research integrity. The use of two senior staff provides resilience. Our Code of Conduct for Research and the Concordat are both covered in our research student and supervisor workshops, and are easily accessible via our intranet pages.
Middlesex University operates a comprehensive whistle blower policy (copy attached). It is very much part of the culture at the University where we have a very active research unit (http://www.mdx.ac.uk/our-research/research-groups/whistleblowing-research-unit ) that makes important contributions, and indeed takes the lead on significant issues relevant to the national and international debate.
We considered all of the recommendations contained within the Concordat when it was first published and reviewed our Code of Practice at that time. While we are fully signed up to the Concordat (e.g. see our Code of Practice for Research), we have chosen not to separate research integrity, and research ethics in general, for special treatment. We expect and demand the highest standards of honesty and integrity of our staff and students in all that we do. To single out research integrity/ethics could, we believe, run the risk of it being perceived as being more important than other equally significant matters (e.g. misconduct in relation to our equality and diversity agenda).
I trust the above is sufficient for the needs of the Committee, but should you require any further details or clarification, then please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Richard Comley Director of Research Middlesex University CD:amp
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Professor C P Day MA, MD, PhD, FMedSci Vice-Chancellor and President Chair Science and Technology Committee Executive Office House of Commons Newcastle University London King’s Gate Newcastle upon Tyne SW1A 0AA NE1 7RU United Kingdom
29 November 2017
Dear Mr Lamb
Research Integrity
Thank you for providing Newcastle University with the opportunity to contribute to the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into research integrity and compliance with the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Please see responses below to your queries relating to whether the University is compliant with three specific recommendations of the Concordat:
1. Present a short annual statement to their own governing body that […] provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken. To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publicly available.
Newcastle University Research Committee (URC) reviews the University’s compliance with the Concordat annually and makes recommendations regarding any actions to support and / or strengthen understanding and application of research integrity. Most recently URC has recommended that training and awareness raising in relation to research integrity should be further developed and as a result the University Research Office is engaging with the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) to take this forward.
To date a formal annual statement, including reference to any allegations of research misconduct, has not been provided to the University’s governing body nor made publicly available. However, a report relating to the 2016/17 academic year is due to be presented to University Council on 11th December 2017. This report will also be made publicly available via the University website at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/research/ethics/goodpractice/
2. Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity.
Tel: +44 (0) 191 208 6064 [email protected] Page 1 of 2
CD:amp
In cases of suspected research misconduct and for further information the initial contact is the Head of Academic Unit, then the appropriate Faculty Dean of Research. Ultimate oversight of research integrity lies with the PVC for Research Strategy and Resources with day to day support provided via the Policy & Information Officer in the University Research Office. See further: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/research/ethics/goodpractice/
3. Provide a named point of contact or recognise 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.
In relation to research misconduct, the policy mandates that the point of contact should be the relevant Head of Academic Unit, then Faculty Dean of Research. See further: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/assets/documents/PolicyandProcedureforInvestigatingAllegations ofResearchMisconduct.pdf
In addition, the University’s Policy on Public Interest provides that we assist workers and students who wish to make a disclosure, in the public interest, about what they believe to be malpractice or impropriety. In this case the first point of contact is the Registrar, or, if that is not appropriate then Chair of Audit Committee and Chair of Council. See further: https://my.ncl.ac.uk/staff/assets/documents/PolicyandProcedureonPublicInterestDisclosure .pdf
Attached as Appendix A is further information setting out the University’s compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Yours sincerely
Professor Chris Day Vice-Chancellor and President
Page 2 of 2
Appendix A: The Concordat to Support Research Integrity – Newcastle University Compliance and Alignment (November 2017)
Commitment #1: We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
Responsible Group Concordat University Guidance / Compliance Researchers will: 1.1 Understand the expected standards of rigour and The standards expected of researchers (along with the tools to help integrity relevant to their research them attain them) are clearly outlined in the University’s policy and procedures – see 1.3 and 1.4 1.2 Maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity Through its policies, training and culture the University aims to in their work at all times support its researchers in achieving the highest standards. These are referenced in 1.3 and 1.4 Employers of 1.3 Collaborating to maintain a research environment Research Integrity is supported across the University. The University researchers are that develops good research practice and nurtures a Research Office and University Research Committee work with the responsible for: culture of research integrity, as described in Faculties in order to ensure that policies and guidance are fit for commitments 2 to 5. purpose. The University also shares best practice with other institutions as a member of the Russell Group’s Research Integrity Forum and through other forums such as AREC (Association of Research Ethical Committees) and ARMA (Association of Research Managers and Administrators) and more recently as a subscriber to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). The University also runs a Joint Research Executive and Joint Research Office with the Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust which concerns itself with governance and research integrity in the clinical research area. 1.4 Supporting researchers to understand and act The University provides a range of mentoring, networking according to expected standards, values and behaviours, opportunities and training to researchers via the University Research and defending them when they live up to these Office, Human Resources and Faculty Postgraduate Research Training expectations in difficult circumstances. Co-ordinators. Further opportunities to build on the University’s current provision in order to strengthen understanding and application of research integrity with a view to further embedding integrity and ethics within the research environment are being explored. The University has recently subscribed to the Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and intends to utilise their experience in this regard.
The University states its expectations of researchers clearly within its Code of Good Practice in Research. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/research/ethics/goodpractice/
Newcastle University was one of the first Universities in the UK and Europe to be awarded the HR Excellence in Research Award in September 2010.The award recognises our successes in supporting the career development of our researchers and in implementing the national Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, which was agreed between the major funders and employers of researchers See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/hr/about/researchers/concordat.php
The University also provides guidelines to all staff on their expected Conduct, Capability and Conditions of Service and research students via the research student handbook. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/hr/policy/conduct.php and http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/progress/student-resources/PGR/ Funders of research 1.5 Researchers to adhere to the highest standards of The Concordat is a useful summary of the expectations of Research expect: professionalism and integrity. funders for researchers and research institutions. The University’s Code of Good Practice in Research (and other related polices - noted in section 1.4) is fully compatible and supportive of the concordat 1.6 Employers of researchers to have procedures in place The University policies have been widely and thoroughly disseminated to ensure that research is conducted in accordance with to existing research staff. New researchers are required to familiarise standards of best practice; systems to promote themselves with the policies and ensure they are capable of complying research integrity; and transparent, robust and fair with them. See 1.4 above. processes to investigate alleged research misconduct
Commitment #2: We are committed to ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
Researchers will: 2.1 Ensure that all research is subject to active and The University’s Ethics Policy applies to all members of the University appropriate consideration of ethical issues including staff, students (undergraduate & postgraduate) and any other person or body which represents the University. It applies equally to work undertaken at Newcastle University, its branch campuses and at other locations. Overall governance of University ethics is undertaken by University Ethics Committee and supported operationally by the Policy & Information Officer. Additional guidance, including on specific ethical issues and exemplars of best practice is available through the University Ethics Toolkit. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/research/ethics_governance/ethics_gover nance_toolkit/index.htm 2.2 Comply with ethical, legal and professional University policies are reviewed regularly to ensure they are in line frameworks, obligations and standards as required by with legal and funder requirements. Within the ethics toolkit, funder, statutory and regulatory authorities, and by employers, legislative and professional association guidance is referenced and funders and other relevant stakeholders linked. Employers of 2.3 Having clear policies on ethical approval available to The University operates a single stream ethical approval process for researchers are all researchers. all the projects it supports. Part one - preliminary questions are responsible for: completed at proposal / application stage and where approval is needed a flag applied to the project which prevents project set up and work starting until full ethical approval is granted. For projects requiring full ethical review, further details are requested. This information is then sent to the appropriate Faculty review committee and returned to the researcher with recommendations. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/research/ethics_governance/ethics_gover nance_toolkit/index.htm 2.4 Making sure that all researchers are aware of and The ethical policies and procedures are well integrated into the understand policies and processes relating to ethical University’s systems enabling automatic capture of appropriate approval information. The preliminary ethics for funded projects are also checked by the Grants and Contracts teams before submission of any application. Training provides an overview of the ethical review process. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/research/training/ResearchSystemsTrainin g.htm The Research Office also organises more bespoke ethics training in conjunction with staff in the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre and Faculty Postgraduate Research Training Co-ordinators. Small group training is also provided for the relevant faculty research committees and particularly new members or when committees are fundamentally reconstituted. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/peals/education/training/ 2.5 Supporting researchers to reflect best practice in As referenced above, the University has a research ethics toolkit relation to ethical, legal and professional requirements which signposts researchers to the appropriate guidance. Ethics support is also embedded within each Faculty through the Faculty Ethics Coordinator. Additional support can be accessed through the Policy & Information Officer in the University Research Office. Researchers are encouraged (where appropriate) to join professional associations and adhere to their professional standards as part of their research. 2.6 Having appropriate arrangements in place through As in 2.5 which researchers can access advice and guidance on ethical, legal and professional obligations and standards Funders of research 2.7 To conform to the ethical, legal and professional Institutionally the Grants and Contracts team in the University will expect standards relevant to their research; this includes any Research Office and Joint Research Office (for NHS / Medical researchers and specific codes of practice, legal requirements and other Projects) will make the PI aware of any non-standard funder employers of policies that the funder identifies as part of their requirements. researchers conditions of grant. The University outlines its expectations in the Code of Good Practice in Research; Section 5 – Guidance from Professional Bodies. The University’s HR policies set out more general expectations in relation to minimum standard and behaviours of staff. To support 2.8 Clearly identify any specific codes of practice, legal researchers and requirements and other policies that researchers and employers of employers of researchers are expected to comply with researchers, funders of research will 2.9 Explore ways of streamlining requirements to reduce any duplication and inconsistency
Commitment #3: We are committed to 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.
Employers of 3.1 Clear policies, practices and procedures to support The University has a suite of research policies and guidance researchers should researchers documents to support its researchers. Any changes or updates are have: disseminated widely across the institution. The policies collectively can be found at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/resources/Polices%20Forms%20and%20Gu idance/Policies.htm Copies are also on individual academic unit sites. Additional information particularly relevant to research students can be found at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/progress/student-resources/PGR/
3.2 Suitable learning, training and mentoring The University provides opportunities to its researchers across their opportunities to support the development of career profile. The main portal for these is: researchers http://www.ncl.ac.uk/research/support/resskills/#researchers
3.3 Robust management systems to ensure that policies The University recommends that all policies and procedures are relating to research, research integrity and researcher periodically reviewed; this takes the form of a light–touch annual behaviour are implemented. review and /or a full review and re-approval typically every five years. The Performance Development Review is the key area where unit level management of integrity takes place – this annual review gives staff the opportunity to raise issues and receive feedback. Research student induction and expectations re standards of behaviours are covered at induction and specific training sessions arranged / delivered via the Faculty Postgraduate Research Training Co-ordinators. Research students and supervisors are required to sign a ‘Learning Agreement’ which includes reference to responsibilities in relation to good academic practice. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/progress/assets/documents/Learning Agreement.pdf 3.4 Awareness among researchers of the standards and The standards expected of researchers are stated clearly in the Code behaviours that are expected of them of Good Practice in Research; (specifically) Section 1 Integrity and Honesty, Section 3 Leadership and Co-operation. Key responsibilities for promulgation are noted in Section 13.1 Managing Research Projects. 3.5 Systems within the research environment that The Policy and Procedure for Declarations of Interest and Conflicts of identify potential concerns at an early stage and Interest Policy outlines typical scenarios where a declaration should mechanisms for providing support to researchers in be made and any declarations must be recorded in the MyImpact need of assistance person management system where it can be reviewed by Research and Enterprise Services and Head of Unit as part of management and PDR. The PDR system is the official review point for PIs and project team members to raise any early stage / minor concerns. Research Administrators and project support officers who manage the non-research elements of projects can also provide early warning of any issues which may be indicative of other problems. All issues should be reported to the Head of Academic Unit in the first instance and if for any reason this is not appropriate then they should contact the relevant Research Dean in their faculty. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/assets/documents/declarations_of_extern al_interest_policy.pdf
The University Policy on Public Interest Disclosure may also be referred to where the above policy is not appropriate or has been exhausted. 3.6 A senior member of staff to oversee research In cases of suspected misconduct and for further information the integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone initial contact should be the Head of Academic Unit, then the wanting more information on matters of research relevant Faculty Dean of Research. Ultimate responsibility lies with integrity. the PVC for Research Strategy and Resources. Day to day support is available through the Policy & Information Officer in the University Research Office. Employers of 3.7 Embed these features in their own systems, Significant effort has been exerted in ensuring that the University’s researchers will: processes and practices polices are up to date, represent best practice and are integrated as fully as possible into practices & procedures / systems although it is recognised that the process is one of continual improvement. 3.8 Work towards reflecting recognised best practice in The University reviews its policies and procedures frequently and their own systems, processes and practices benchmarks itself against its comparator institutions. It also utilises ‘industry standards’ such as this concordat to identify gaps and drive improvement. 3.9 Implement the concordat within their research University Research Committee reviews compliance / environment implementation of the concordat on an annual basis and makes recommendations regarding areas for further development / improvement. Funders of research 3.10 Promoting adoption of the concordat within the are responsible for: research community 3.11 Supporting the implementation of the concordat through shared guidance, policies and plans
Commitment #4: We are committed to using transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.
Researchers will: 4.1 Act in good faith with regard to allegations of The role of researchers in relation to misconduct is clearly outlined in the research misconduct, whether in making allegations Policy and Procedure for Investigating Allegation of Research Misconduct. or in being required to participate in an investigation This covers rights and responsibilities of researchers both as instigators of investigations and as respondents and states clear timescales and procedures. See: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/res/assets/documents/PolicyandProcedureforInves tigatingAllegationsofResearchMisconduct.pdf
Expectations specifically relating to research students in this regard are set out in full at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/right-cite/Student/ 4.2 Handle potential instances of research misconduct As above. The policy provides clear guidance and where allegations of in an appropriate manner; this includes reporting research misconduct are upheld then the appropriate organisations will misconduct to employers, funders and professional, be notified. statutory and regulatory bodies as circumstances require. Employers of 4.3 Have the primary responsibility for investigating As per the policy and procedure. researchers should allegations of research misconduct already 4.4 Ensure that any person involved in investigating As per the policy and procedure. Additionally any head of academic unit such allegations has the appropriate knowledge, skills, investigating research misconduct can access advice from Human experience and authority to do so. Resources and the Research Office regarding the strength of the allegation, interpretation of the policy and procedure etc. 4.5 Have clear, well-articulated and confidential As per the policy and procedure. mechanisms for reporting allegations of research misconduct 4.6 Have robust, transparent and fair processes for As per the policy and procedure. dealing with allegations of misconduct that reflect best practice (see Annex II of the Concordat) 4.7 Ensure that all researchers are made aware of the The approved policy has previously been disseminated to staff through relevant contacts and procedures for making University Research Committee, Faculty Research Committees, Heads of allegations Academic Unit and other appropriate forums. It is also available via the University website (see above). 4.8 Act with no detriment to whistleblowers making Neither the misconduct policy nor the University Policy on Public Interest allegations of misconduct in good faith (whistle blower) imposes a penalty on staff making an accusation in good faith. 4.9 Provide information on investigations of research The University will provide feedback to external bodies where an misconduct to funders of research and professional allegation is upheld or where the Institution has agreed to as part of the and/or statutory bodies as required by their grant conditions where a formal investigation has begun. The University conditions of grant and other legal, professional and will not ordinarily involve external organisations in the informal stage. statutory obligations. 4.10 Support their researchers in providing Researchers are able to access support via Human Resources, the appropriate information to professional and/or University Research Office and appropriate unions. statutory bodies. Employers of 4.11 Provide a named point of contact or recognise an The misconduct policy mandates that the point of contact should be researchers are appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison Head of Academic unit, then Faculty Dean of Research. Ultimate recommended to for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to responsibility lies with PVC Research Strategy and Resources. raise concerns about the integrity of research being The Policy on Public Interest mandates that the first point of contact conducted under their auspices should be the Registrar and if that is not appropriate then Chair of Audit Committee and Chair of Council. Funders of research 4.12 Have clear expectations of what constitutes will: research misconduct 4.13 Ensure that recipients of funding are aware of requirements regarding the investigation and reporting of research misconduct, and that these are openly stated
Commitment #5: We are committed to working together to strengthen the integrity of research and to reviewing progress regularly and openly.
Employers of 5.1 Provide a short annual statement to their governing A report relating to the 2016/17 academic year is due to be researchers are body that: presented to University Council on 11th December 2017. This recommended to: report will also be made publicly available via the University Provides a summary of actions and activities that have website at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/research/ethics/goodpractice/ been undertaken to support and strengthen understanding and application of research integrity issues (for example postgraduate and researcher training, or process reviews).
Provides assurances that the processes they have in place for dealing with allegations of misconduct are transparent, robust and fair, and that they continue to be appropriate to the needs of the organisation
Provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken. Employers of 5.2 Periodically review their processes to ensure that See 3.3 above. researchers need to: they remain ‘fit for purpose’ Funders of research, 5.3 Work together to produce an annual narrative The University is willing to input as appropriate in to an annual employers of statement on research integrity. narrative statement. researchers and other organisations should:
Professor George Marston Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation)
Vice-Chancellor’s Office Northumbria University Sutherland Building College Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK 29 November 2017 Personal Assistant: Sarah Fitton Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Science and Technology Committee T : +44 (0) 191 349 5201 House of Commons E: [email protected] W: northumbria.ac.uk London
SW1A 0AA
The Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP
Research Integrity
Further to your correspondence dated 8 November, please find our response below.
Northumbria University is committed to the principles of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Our annual statements on research integrity are endorsed by the University Research Ethics and Research and Knowledge Exchange Committees prior to submission for approval to the Board of Governors. Statements have been approved and published since 2013/14. The most recent statement for 2016/17 (approved by the Board of Governors on 20 November 2017) can be accessed here: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/-/media/corporate- website/new-sitecore-gallery/research/documents/pdf/board-of-governors---research-integrity-statement-2015- 16.pdf?la=en&hash=0A4476BAE2BF1EE632D7273C581181889DFA1AEB
The named university contact for research integrity is the Deputy Director (Research) and contact details are listed at the link below. https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/research/ethics-and-governance/
The Deputy Director (Research) can be contacted for all integrity-related issues. In addition, the University has a whistleblowing policy (the University Public Interest Policy and Procedure) which outlines the process for making a complaint, and details the appropriate contact (normally the Head of Governance). https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/leadership-governance/vice-chancellors-office/governance- services/university-policies-and-procedures/university-public-interest-policy-and-procedure/
In relation to other aspects of the Concordat, our Research Ethics and Governance website (https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/research/ethics-and-governance/ ) is regularly monitored and updated and is intended to be the first point of call for all researchers to obtain information about the University’s research integrity policies and processes, as well as providing links to relevant documentation in the wider sector.
Each of Northumbria’s four faculties has an academic Research Ethics Director who meet regularly with staff from the Research and Innovation Services department to monitor and review policy and processes (the Ethics Steering Group). The work of this group is overseen by the Research Ethics Committee, chaired by a Faculty Associate Pro Vice-Chancellors (Research and Innovation), on behalf of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation). At a local level there is a network of academic Department Ethics Coordinators, whose role includes the oversight of submissions to the University’s on-line ethics approval system. The on-line system was launched in September 2017, and was developed through a ‘root and branch’ review of practice across the University. The system will be fully-rolled out from January 2018 to include all undergraduate and postgraduate (taught) students to ensure that integrity issues are a key consideration across all our research.
Professor Andrew Wathey Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive Northumbria University is the trading name of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle
To help researchers understand the importance of research integrity there is a University ethics training programme. This has been developed by the Ethics Steering Group and the content is agreed annually by Research Ethics Committee. The programme is delivered in faculties by the Research Ethics Directors, who will enhance the standard content with any faculty or discipline-specific information. The standard content has recently been converted to an on-line course, which will form part of the University’s mandatory training programmes. There is an expectation that all new staff complete the ethics training programme, and that all staff undertake refresher training every three years. The on-line module will enable the University to better monitor completion of the training. Research integrity best practice is also flagged on a one-to-one basis through the research mentoring scheme.
The process for dealing with allegations of research misconduct is available to staff through the intranet (linked from the Ethics and Governance page). The process was developed with reference to the Misconduct Investigation Procedure produced by the UK Research Integrity Office’s (UKRIO), and is currently being reviewed.
Yours sincerely
Professor George Marston Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation)
Response from Oxford Brookes University (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb Further to your letter dated 8 November regarding Research Integrity, I am pleased to confirm that Oxford Brookes University complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat. Oxford Brookes provides short annual statements to the Board of Governors Committee which meet bi-monthly. This years report was presented at our meeting held on 11 July 2017. Furthermore, these statements can be found on our Research Integrity pages on our website: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/research/policies-and-codes-of-practice/research- integrity/ Professor Linda King, Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Global Partnerships, oversees our research integrity. Professor King manages this as line manager to the Director of Research Development, who leads on training issues. Professor King is Chair of our Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee (which agrees our Code of Practice and any amendments) and liaises directly with academic staff via the Faculty Associate Deans, Research and Knowledge Exchange, who are responsible for issues like this at a local level. Any issues in relation to misconduct, should in the first instance be sent to Sarah Taylor, Research Support Director (as highlighted in the webpage above). Please do contact me if you require any further information.
Kind regards Professor Alistair Fitt -- Vice-Chancellor, Oxford Brookes University
Response from University of Plymouth (via email) In response to the letter of 8 November 2017 from the Rt Hon Norman Lamb to Professor Judith Petts I can confirm that the University of Plymouth conforms with the recommendations of the 2012 'Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. Our Annual Statement can be accessed at: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/governance and details of the University’s Senior Member of staff who oversees research integrity (who is myself) and of other named individuals who can be contacted are available at: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/governance/ethics .
The University takes its approach to research integrity extremely seriously and has recently revised its committee structures, both at Faculty and University level, to ensure that this issue is recognised and discussed widely within the institution. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information.
Best wishes Jerry
Professor Jerry Roberts
Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Enterprise
Office of the Vice-Chancellor University of Plymouth
Response from Queen Margaret University (via email)
In response to your letter of 8 November, I am pleased to provide a URL to Queen Margaret University’s Annual Statement on Compliance with the Concordat for Research Integrity. https://www.qmu.ac.uk/research-and-knowledge-exchange/strategy-and-policy/concordat-to- support-research-integrity/ Please let me know if further information is required Regards, Kim
Kim Gilchrist Head of Research and KE Development Unit Queen Margaret University
Vice-Chancellor’s Office Lanyon South Queen’s University Belfast Belfast BT7 1NN Tel +44 (0) 2890 97 2572 Email: [email protected]
27 November 2017
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair, Inquiry into Research Integrity Science and Technology Committee House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Lamb
Your letter of 8 November 2017 refers.
Queen’s University Belfast has been a strong advocate for the integrity of research even prior to the publication of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. The University welcomed the Concordat’s publication as it has enabled a stronger focus and emphasis to be placed on integrity matters.
Following publication of the Concordat in 2012 the University undertook a self-assessment to determine compliance levels. A template had been developed by the UK Research Integrity Office which was made available to subscribing members. The University completed this, developing an action plan to address any areas for improvement. Annual Statements on Compliance with Research Integrity were considered by the University’s governing body, Senate, and made available on the public website for the years 2013-14, 2014- 15, and 2015-16. The statement for 2016-17 is currently in preparation and will progress through the University’s governance structures in due course. All statements published to date are available through the following link http://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/Governance-ethics-and-integrity/Research-integrity/.
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Postgraduates and Enterprise is the senior officer responsible for research integrity. They are supported on a day to day basis by the Governance, Ethics and Integrity Team, their contacts are detailed at the following link: http://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/Governance-ethics-and- integrity/GovernanceEthicsandIntegrityTeamContacts/.
The University has a Whistle-Blowing Policy in place, enabling staff/students to raise matters directly with their Head of School/Director or, where applicable, with the Registrar and Chief Operating Officer. The policy also permits the individual’s line manager to act as a confidential intermediary for whistle-blowers.
Should the Science and Technology Committee’s enquiry require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Professor James C. McElnay Acting Vice-Chancellor
Vice Chance ors Office T +44 (0)20 7487 7516 i$"RE,GE,NT'S Regent's University London F +44 (0)20 t 481 1656 UNIVF]RSITY LONDO\ lnner Circle, Regent's Park \ / regents.ac.uk London. NW I 4NS
The Rt.Hon. Norman Lamb Chair, Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A OAA \] 16th November 2017 (l.\\;1i2 ) n}\' { Y* rT .u^u Research lntegrity Thank you for your letter of the 8th November concerning the 'Concordat to Support Research lntegrity'. I must admit that I had not heard of the Concordat and it had not been brought to my attention. This may be because Regent's did not gain University title until 2013 and was not admitted to Universities UK membership until 2014. I believe that we are the only institution that has joined UUK in recent years so are probably the only one in this position about the Concordat. Regent's is one of only two non state-funded, charitable, not for profit universities in the UK. The other is'The University of Buckingham' which has held title since the mid-eighties and joined the forerunner to UUK shortly thereafter. Regent's is very much a teaching focused but research engaged institution. Research is important to us and we have just commenced the expansion of our PhD programme. We also have a very strong commitment to integrity and values. I have discussed the Concordat with senior colleagues here. We see no problem in committing to its recommendations. We will take steps to comply shortly and I will inform you when we have done so.
Best wishes, 2
.,' --P+otlfldwyn Cooper Vice €hancellor and CEO Regent's University London
Rege.rs Un,!€rsry London s a Company Ljmired by GuaBntee rc8inercd h En8land andwales wth a regstered numbe. 179 750 and E a e8,nered Cfanv 291583 ReSnered Oflce nne. C rc e, Regents Park London NWI 4NS Research Integrity at RGU – November 2017
Details about the university’s support for the Concordat are held within our Research Governance and Integrity Policy document which is available here: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/about/planning-and-policy/policies/policies.
This page also holds our statement to demonstrate our support for the Concordat principles. The senior member of RGU staff who oversees research integrity and who acts as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information is Professor Paul Hagan, Vice-Principal (Research).
Our statement does not identify a named point of contact to act as confidential liaison for whistle-blowers but it directs people to our Research Governance and Integrity Policy which defines research misconduct, and provides instructions for the appropriate handling of misconduct allegations to appropriate third parties namely those involving staff, through the university’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, and students through the Student Misconduct Procedure.
It was agreed at our Research Committee meeting in May 2017 to present a short annual statement to its Board of Governors which, once approved, will be publicly available, in order to: • provide a summary of actions and activities that have been undertaken to support and strengthen understanding and application of research integrity issues (for example, postgraduate and researcher training, or process reviews); • provide assurances that the university’s processes for dealing with allegations of misconduct are transparent, robust and fair, and that they continue to be appropriate to the needs of the university; • provide a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken.
The draft annual statement for 2017 will be reviewed at our Research Committee meeting in February 2018 and approved at our Board of Governors meeting in March 2018, with the expectation that it will be made publicly available before the end of March 2018. As part of our annual statement, we will provide a confidential email address ([email protected]), accessible only by the Vice Principal (Research) and the Research Strategy Manager to which staff can submit any concerns.
The university webpages are currently undergoing review and we expect the location of this annual statement to be on the Research Governance webpages (http://www.rgu.ac.uk/research/research-governance) but the precise web address may differ by the time of its publication in March 2018.
Rt Hon. Norman Lamb MP Chair, Select Committee on Science and Technology House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
11 December 2017
Dear Mr Lamb
Research integrity Thank you for your letter of 8 November enquiring about our approach to research integrity, and in particular, our adherence to the three specific requirements set out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2012) which you highlight. I am happy to confirm to the Select Committee that the Royal College of Music takes a variety of steps to ensure that it has a robust and effective approach to ensuring that its staff and students understand and uphold the highest principles of research integrity. These are set out in our procedures for governing ethical research practice, and for investigating and reporting unacceptable research conduct, that meet the requirements set out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2012) and the RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct (2013). All research undertaken at the RCM is subject to this Policy. As a member of Conservatoires UK, the RCM is a participant in the CUK Joint Research Ethics Committee and abides by the Conservatoires UK (CUK) Research Ethics guidelines on good research conduct (http://www.conservatoiresuk.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/CUK_Guidelines_on_Good_Research_Conduct_1617.pdf).
I can confirm that the RCM has a nominated senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity (Professor Richard Wistreich, Director of Research). I can also confirm that the RCM provides a named point of contact 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 (Mr Kevin Porter, Deputy Director; in his absence, Ms Hazel Pudney, Head of HR), as set out in the RCM Whistleblowing Strategy and Procedure (http://www.rcm.ac.uk/about/governance/strategy/hr). Information about research integrity, including the names of contacts for reporting research misconduct, is displayed on the RCM website at http://www.rcm.ac.uk/research/about/ethics/.
I can also confirm that until now there have been no reported incidences of formal investigations of research misconduct at the RCM. In the event that any incidences were to be reported in the future, a full statement about them would of course be made to the RCM Council and subsequently made public on our website.
Yours sincerely
Professor Colin Lawson CBE Director
Royal College of Music Prince Consort Road London SW7 2BS President HRH The Prince of Wales United Kingdom Chairman Lord Black of Brentwood +44(0)20 7591 4300 Director Professor Colin Lawson CBE MA (Oxon) MA PhD DMus FRCM FRNCM FLCM HonRAM www.rcm.ac.uk Registered as a charity
Response from Royal Holloway University of London (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Thank you for your letter dated 8 November 2017 regarding the progress in implementing the 2012 “Concordat to Support Research Integrity” in our institution.
Royal Holloway is committed to undertaking research to the highest level of integrity and in accordance with the internationally agreed Concordat to Support Research Integrity, whose UK signatories include Universities UK, HEFCE and Research Councils UK.
In line with our undertakings as a member, via Universities UK, of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, the College confirmed to Council in December 2017 that no formal investigations into allegations of research misconduct have been undertaken by College in the academic year 2016-17.
The senior member of College staff who is appointed to oversee research integrity is Prof Katie Normington.
The point of contact within the College for anyone wishing to raise concerns or for the purpose of whistle blowing is Prof John Wann, Interim Director of Research & Enterprise
This information can be found on our website at: www.royalholloway.ac.uk//iquad/services/researchsupport/ethics/research-integrity.aspx
Do not hesitate to contact us if you need further information.
Yours sincerely Teresa Martinez Sancho on behalf the Principal
Response from Southampton Solent University (via email)
Dear Rt Honourable Norman Lamb MP
Thank you for your letter regarding the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Southampton Solent University aims to maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research. Our University Ethics Committee regularly reviews the Concordat commitments and monitors their implementation.
The following addresses the three areas, which you enquired about.
If there has been any formal investigation into an allegation of research misconduct by researchers employed by the university, a report on the investigation will be written by the University Ethics Committee, which reports to the Research, Innovation & Enterprise Committee, one of the sub-committees of the University’s Academic Board.
The University Ethics Committee is charged with the mapping of the University’s structures and processes to the Concordat for Research Integrity. This is a working document, a review of which forms part of the University Ethics Committee’s annual programme of work.
The University directs initial enquiries regarding research integrity to the Chair of the Research, Innovation & Enterprise Committee, and the whistleblowing key contact is the relevant Director of School or Service. The University publishes the roles rather than names of individuals as these are subject to change.
The University publishes this information and the related policies and procedures on the following page: http://portal.solent.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/ethics/ethics.aspx
The University does not currently publish an annual report on instances of research misconduct; it does take very seriously the UUK guidance and will review the RCUK assurance questions as a basis for doing this.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Best regards
Catherine
Catherine Lee Director | Research, Innovation & Enterprise Southampton Solent University
Professor Jenny Higham
Principal PA: Caroline Donohoe
+44 (0)208 725 5008 Medicine, Biomedical Sciences, Health and Social Care Sciences [email protected] Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE
29 December 2017
Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP
Many thanks for your letter dated 8 November 2017. Please find below comments addressing the three points raised in your letter:
• The University presented its annual statement on research integrity to its Council on 21st November 2017. The statement details the University’s activities in promoting and strengthening research integrity over 2017, and also provides details of one allegation of research misconduct that went through the internal informal process. This annual statement (and that of 2016) can be found here: https://www.sgul.ac.uk/about-us/governance/policies#research-policies
• Our research misconduct policy and procedure identifies a senior member of staff in both the University, and St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (these two entities share the same geographical site). Within the University, this senior member of staff who oversees research integrity and acts as first point of contact is the Deputy Principal for Research, Professor Mark Fisher. The procedure can be found on our website at https://www.sgul.ac.uk/about- us/governance/policies#research-policies.
• The University’s point of contact and confidential liaison for whistleblowers is Professor Deborah Bowman, Deputy Principal for Institutional Affairs. The University also has a Whistleblowing and Public Interest Disclosure Policy and Procedure available to staff (https://www.sgul.ac.uk/about- us/governance/policies#whistleblowing).
St George’s, University of London publishes its annual statement on research integrity and any instances of misconduct on its website (see first bullet point above for link).
I can therefore confirm that the University complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat outlined in your letter. With reference to our assessment with our compliance with other recommendations in the Concordat, we have conducted a gap analyses of the University’s compliance with the Concordat in order to highlight areas of good practice as well as areas for improvement and I can confirm that St George’s, University of London, is compliant with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Kind regards
Professor Jenny Higham
Response from Staffordshire University (via email) Thank you for the request dated 8th November, 2017, from Norman Lamb MP, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. Staffordshire University consider research integrity to be of the utmost importance and we take every care to meet the requirements of the concordat. Below are our responses that clarify our procedures for complying with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Our information on research integrity is included on the following webpage. http://www.staffs.ac.uk/research/ethics/index.jsp
The Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor Martin Jones, has the responsibility to oversee research and research integrity and can be contacted for further information. We also provide a named point of contact (Cathal Rogers; Research Policy and Governance Manager) as a confidential liaison for whistle-blowers, or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted at the University.
The University Governors receive annually a formal report on research activity. We have not had a formal research misconduct investigation during the last four years. The most recent investigation of research misconduct was carried out in 2013-2014 and the report was presented to the then Vice Chancellor, Professor Michael Gunn, who dealt with the case in his capacity as a member of the University Governing Body. The research reports provided to the board of governors have not to date been made publicly available as a matter of course but all papers provided to the governors can be requested.
------
Deputy Vice-Chancellor Staffordshire University
Response from Swansea University (via email) Dear colleagues In response to your request, I confirm that Swansea University:
• Does present an annual report on Research and Innovation matters which includes a section on research integrity and governance to its governing body, Senate. This report does not currently contain details of research misconduct cases. In future, however, we will provide a high level summary of the numbers and the broad areas/academic Colleges concerned. Further information on the Senate is available from Louise Woollard, Secretary of the Senate. • Has identified a senior member of staff as the contact point and lead for matters of research integrity and research governance. Details are publicly available on or website: http://www.swansea.ac.uk/research/researchintegrity/ • Provides a named point of contact to act as a confidential liaison point on matters of whistleblowing, in line with our policy: http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Section%20H-%20Whistleblowing%20Policy.pdf
Staff at Swansea University are also provided with the opportunity to undertake specialist training into research integrity: http://www.swansea.ac.uk/reis/supportforacademics/integrity- training/ If you require any further information or clarification, please let me know.
Regards
Julie
Julie Williams Associate Director and Head of Research Development Cyfarwyddwr Cyswllt a Pennaeth Datblygu Ymchwil
Response from University of Plymouth (via email) Dear Science and Technology Committee, On behalf our Principal, Professor Tom Inns, a reply here to the Rt Hon Norman Lamb’s 8th November 2017 request for information relevant to the Committee’s inquiry into research integrity. In respect of the three recommendations of the Concordat reproduced in the 8th November letter:
• The Glasgow School of Art has not had a single case of research misconduct since the Concordat was established through Universities UK. No short annual statement, therefore, has been presented to our governing body in respect of research misconduct. • At GSA our senior member of staff for all matters to do with research, including research ethics and integrity, is the Head of Research and Enterprise. • GSA has a governing-body-approved Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) Policy, revised in October 2017. The Designated Officer at GSA for PID is the Registrar and Secretary, who acts as the named contact for persons wishing to raise concerns about research integrity. The policy is published on our public website. We continue to regard the Concordat as a valuable guide for the foundations of our research environment and as a means of identifying enhancements. We look forward to the conclusions of your work. Sincerely, Ken Neil
Professor Ken Neil MA(Hons) MFA PhD PGCert FHEA FRSA
Deputy Director (Academic)
The Glasgow School of Art
Response from The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama (via email) Dear Mr Lamb I am pleased to confirm that The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat reproduced in your letter to me dated 8 November 2017. The URL of our most recent report can be found at http://www.cssd.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Report%20to%20Governing%20Body%20from%20 Research%20Ethics.pdf and the page that details the named research integrity contact can be found at http://www.cssd.ac.uk/research/research-ethics. We collaborate to maintain a research environment that develops good research practice through refresher sessions with PhD supervisors and annual sessions on research ethics, whistleblowing and research integrity with students and staff. Central fosters a culture where everyone involved with research has a shared responsibility for ensuring high standards of integrity throughout the research process through to publication and/or performance. We work with Conservatoires UK Ethics Committee to ensure that issues relating to practice research are given due consideration.
Yours sincerely Gavin Henderson
Professor Gavin Henderson CBE Principal The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama
Response from the University of Buckingham (via email) The university's reference point with regard to research integrity has been the principles of the joint statement by the Director General of the Research Councils and the Chief Executives of the UK Research Councils entitled ‘Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice’ of 1998 (http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/safe.htm)
Allegations of academic misconduct in relation to research are dealt with via the university's Discipline procedures and Grievance procedures, and we do not at this time have an 'annual statement of research integrity' or 'details of named contacts' because, as far as I am aware, there have been no allegations of misconduct directed at staff, nor any investigations of such.
Our 'Code of Practice for study by research' is appendix 7 of the Research Handbook https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Code-of-practice.pdf
Professor Stefan Hawlin Response from University of Manchester (via email) For the attention of Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Thank you for the opportunity to provide details regarding compliance with the UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Please find below the response for the University of Manchester: The University of Manchester complies with the recommendations of the UUK Concordat to support Research Integrity. In particular: We can confirm that we annually report the activities of our Research Compliance Committee (Chaired by our Associate Vice President for Compliance, Risk and Research Integrity), to our Board of Governors which includes a high-level statement on formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken. This also includes a dashboard of “assurance, adverse events and external inspection outcomes” which covers all areas of statutory, regulatory and policy requirements including the UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity. The high-level statement on formal investigations of research misconduct is made publically available: http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/services/rbess/governance/annualstatementofintegrity The Research Compliance Committee also provides a more detailed annual report to the University Board of Governor’s Audit and Risk Committee which is chaired by a senior lay member of the Board. The annual report is also shared and discussed with the University’s research strategy leadership teams and senior research professional support staff across our three Faculties through the institutional structure outlined below. The University’s organisational structure ensures that research integrity is embedded in our research strategy and activity. A senior academic holds the position of Associate Vice President (AVP) for Compliance, Risk and Research Integrity; reporting directly to the Vice Chancellor/President and Registrar/Chief Operating Officer, and also annually to the Board of Governors. The AVP is supported by the Head of Research Governance, Ethics and Integrity and her administrative team. The AVP is a member of the University’s research strategy leadership through membership of the University Research Strategy Group and associated research operational group (University Research Group); both of which are chaired by the Vice-President for Research and have membership that includes research leads and senior research professional support staff from each of our Faculties. Complaints of research misconduct are made to the Vice-President for Research directly or via the Head of Research Governance, Ethics and Integrity. This information can be found: https://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/environment/governance/misconduct/ Kind regards Mrs April Lockyer Head of Research Governance, Ethics and Integrity Response from University of Nottingham (Annex) (via email)
ANNEX Mapping of UoN position to the Research Integrity Concordat compliance requirements
RI Commitments Employers of researchers are responsible for University of Nottingham position Commitment #1: We are committed to maintaining the 1 collaborating to maintain a research The University of Nottingham’s Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics provides a highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of environment that develops good comprehensive framework for good research conduct and the governance of all research carried research. research practice and nurtures a culture out across the University. The Code underpins the University’s commitment to maintaining the of research integrity highest standards of integrity, rigour and excellence in all aspects of our research, and for all research to be conducted according to the appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks and standards
2 supporting researchers to understand The Code is made available to all researchers and students at the point of induction and through and act according to expected the School Research Ethics Officers to raise the researcher understanding of the expected standards, standards, values and behaviours. Also, the University, a member of the UKRIO, has access values and behaviours, and defending to training provision of UKRIO on research integrity and organises annual Research Integrity workshops for academic staff and research students. them when they live upto these expectations in difficult circumstances
Commitment #2: We are committed to ensuring that 3 having clear policies on ethical approval The Code is disseminated to all staff and students across the University through the University research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal available to all researchers Research Ethics Committee representatives and the School Research Ethics Officers. The School and professional frameworks, obligations and standards Ethics Officers make the policies and processes on ethical approval available to all researchers within their respective Schools. The University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) ultimately has the responsibility of all ethical approval processes run across the university.
4 making sure that all researchers are A wide range of education, training provision, communication and awareness raising activities on aware of and understand policies and research integrity and ethical review processes are undertaken by the Schools across the processes relating to ethical approval University for both staff and students. Within teaching and training activities of the Schools, Research Integrity is discussed as part of Research Ethics. Research Integrity is discussed in terms of good scientific practice, for example, observing high standards, compliance, honesty as a researcher, and, bad practice, such as, misconduct, secretive working and self-interest. Research Integrity is also discussed in terms of supporting the good elements such as training, codes of conduct, UK Concordat implementation, mentoring, etc. as well as dealing with elements like procedures for investigating misconduct, whistle blowing and journal responses. School Intranet pages containing regularly updated guidelines on Research Ethics and Integrity and module pages in Moodle are also used as means of communication for academic staff, researchers and students.
5 supporting researchers to reflect best In all academic Schools across the University, Research Integrity is central to staff induction practice in relation to ethical, legal and processes, PhD programmes (via different modules which are delivered as a part of the taught professional requirements component) and the work of School Ethics Committee, which support researchers to reflect best practice in relation to ethical, legal and professional requirements as well as monitors and ensures high ethical standards across all areas of School research activity. Research Integrity plays a particular role in the teaching and supervision of dissertation modules of undergraduate courses as well.
6 having appropriate arrangements in Each School has a Research Ethics Officer with the responsibility of ethics approval, raising place through which researchers can awareness of and providing training on research integrity and ethics, writing annual monitoring access advice and guidance on ethical, reports for Research Ethics Committees and keeping the School informed about the University legal and professional obligations and policy on research ethics and integrity. Research integrity forms part of the termly staff meetings agenda for Schools as a regular reminder of the importance of integrity in their research, standards especially, in terms of the collection, storage and use of research data, thereby highlighting the importance of research data management and open access of research outputs and research data. Additionally, University’s Research Ethics Officers’ Forum provides opportunities for sharing of best practice amongst the Schools across the University. At the university level, the Research Integrity Manager acts as the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity. Additionally, the online Epigeum training programme along with the training offered by our Graduate School offers further guidance and training on all aspects of research integrity.
Commitment #3: We are committed to supporting a research 7 embed these features in their own Research integrity is embedded in Nottingham's systems, processes and practices. environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and systems, processes and practices Communication on research integrity matters and ethical approval processes through ethics and integrity based on good governance, best practice and support for the website, regular email updates, regular item on ethics and integrity in School meetings and in the School development of researchers Research Ethics Committee meetings helps embedding a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
8 work towards reflecting recognised best practice in their own systems, processes and practices 9 implement the concordat within their This is happening through the training programmes, induction events, awareness raising events and through research environment the dissemination Code. 10 should identify a senior member of staff The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange has the overall responsibility to oversee to oversee research integrity and to act research integrity for Nottingham. The Research Integrity Manager in Research and as first point of contact for anyone Innovation is the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity. wanting more information on matters of research integrity
Commitment #4: We are committed to using transparent, 11 for investigating allegations of research The University has relevant policies and procedures to respond to research misconduct; namely robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct. Regulations of Academic Misconduct, Staff Disciplinary Procedure, Code of Discipline for Students misconduct should they arise and Fraud Policy. These procedures have appropriate principles and mechanisms to ensure that investigations are thorough and fair, carried out in a transparent and timely manner, and protected by appropriate confidentiality. These procedures can be found at: Quality Manual - Academic Misconduct Policy: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualitymanual/assessmentandawards/academic- misconduct.aspx Academic Misconduct Procedure: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/documents/qmdocuments/regulations-on- academic-misconduct---academic-misconduct-committee-hearings.pdf
12 to ensure that any person involved in Training programmes are being developed for those involved in investigating allegations of research investigating such allegations has the misconduct. appropriate knowledge, skills, experience and authority to do so.
13 for taking appropriate steps to remedy These aspects are embedded in the university processes and procedure for dealing with allegations of any situations arising from an research misconduct investigation. This can include imposing sanctions, correcting the research record and reporting any action to regulatory and statutory bodies, research participants, funders or other professional bodies as circumstances, contractual obligations and statutory requirements dictate. Employers should also be mindful that minor infractions, where there is no evident intention to deceive, may often be addressed informally through mentoring, education and guidance.
14 should already a. have clear, well-articulated and Updated procedures and mechanisms are being developed through a review of the existing processes and confidential mechanisms for reporting procedures and governance structure which includes mechanism for reporting allegations of research allegations of research misconduct misconduct.
b. have robust, transparent and fair Updated procedures and mechanisms are being developed through a review of the existing processes and processes for dealing with allegations of procedures and governance structure. misconduct that reflect best practice.
c. ensure that all researchers are made Information about relevant contacts and procedures for making allegations are dissemintaed through School aware of the relevant contacts and Research Ethics Officers currently. Updated procedures and mechanisms are being developed through a procedures for making allegations review of the existing processes and procedures and governance structure which includes appropriate mechanism to make researchers aware of relevant contacts and procedures for making allegations.
d. act with no detriment to whistleblowers This is part of the normal process of dealing with allegations of research misconduct. However, this aspect is making allegations of misconduct in also being looked at in the review of the existing processes and procedures and governance structure. good faith
e. provide information on investigations of Only the formal investigations on allegations of research misconduct are informed to relevant funders . research misconduct to funders, research and professional and/or statutory bodies as required by their conditions of grant and other legal, professional and statutory obligations.
f. support their researchers in providing appropriate information to professional and/or statutory bodies
15 provide a named point of contact or Director of Research and Innovation is the named point of contact who acts as confidential liaison for recognise an appropriate third party to whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted act as confidential liaison for under their auspices. whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices. This need not be the same person as the member of staff identified to act as first point of contact on research integrity matters, as recommended under Commitment #3.
Commitment #5: We are committed to working together to 16 should present a short annual Most recent annual statement presented to the Council - end of November 2017. strengthen the integrity of research and to reviewing statement to their own governing body Previously presented the annual statements have been in the years 2015 and 2016. progress regularly and openly. that:
i. provides a summary of actions and activities that have been undertaken to support and strengthen understanding and application of research integrity issues (for example postgraduate and researcher training, or process reviews) ii. provides assurances that the processes they have in place for dealing with allegations of misconduct are transparent, robust and fair, and that they continue to be appropriate to the needs of the organisation iii. provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken
Response from The University of West London (via email) Dear Mr Lamb I am writing to you further to your letter of 8 November 2017. The University is committed to upholding research integrity and abides by the commitments outlined in the concordat to Support Research Integrity. It is currently in the process of reviewing its procedures to ensure compliance and to make this commitment more publicly available. However we can confirm that the contact for Research Integrity is Professor Joelle Fanghanel, Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic). The contact for any public interest disclosures or concerns relating to research integrity is Ms Marion Lowe, University Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer. Yours sincerely
Marion Lowe University Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer
St Mary’s Road, Ealing, London W5 5RF | +44 (0) 20 8231 2943 [email protected]
Response from Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance (via email) Dear Mr Lamb, Thank you for your letter dated 8 November. Trinity Laban, along with other conservatories reports via Conservatoires UK in relation to the Concordat. Any cases of research misconduct are reported to our Research Ethics Committee. Dr Jonathan Clark ([email protected]), our Head of Research, is responsible for research integrity and is the first point of contact for anyone wanting further information. Yours sincerely,
Professor Anthony Bowne Principal
FROM THE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST PROFESSOR MICHAEL ARTHUR DM FRCP FMedSci PFHEA
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair Science and Technology Comminee House of Commons London SW1A OAA g
16 November 2017
Dear Mr Lamb
Research lntegrity
I write in response to your letter dated 8 November regarding UUK members' compliance with the UUK Concordat to Support Research lntegrity.
I can conlirm that UCL complies with all live commitments contained within the Concordat. UCL considers high standards of research integrity across all of its activities to be of the utmost importance and, as stated in our earlier writlen evidence to the inquiry, lirmly endorses the lour principles ol integrity as set out in the Concordat. As an institution, we continue to review our processes, expand our guidance and training for researchers and to work, both together and with other institutions, to support a culture of research integrity. ln respect of the three specilic recommendations mentioned in your letter, lam able to reporl as follows.
Annual Statements UCL has submitted an annual statement to UCL Council - its governing body - since the academic year 2014-15; each statement has lhen been subsequently made publicly available.
The annual statements describe the steps we have taken throughout the year to support a general culture of research integrity, as well as our compliance with the Concordat. The statements also provide an assurance lhal ow Procedure lor investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct in academic researchl continues to be appropriate, as well as explaining any changes that have been made to the Procedure. Also included is a high{evel statement on any lormal investigations of research misconduct that have occurred during the reporting period-
The annual statements lor 2014-15 and 2015- 16 are publicly available at the lollowing webpage: hftps://www.ucl.ac.uUresearch/inteoritv/inteority-at-ucl. Our reporting year is the academic year, I October - 30 September, and the report for 2016-17 will be published early 2018 following the meeting of UCL Council to which the report is scheduled to be submitted.
t http://www.ucl.ac.uUsrs/qovernance-and-comm ittees/resqov/research-m isconduct-orocedure-ian-2O17.odl
LJniversity College london Gower Street tondon WClE 68T rel +44lOl2O 7679 7234 Fax: +44 (0)20 7388 5412 www.ucl.ac.uk/provost Email: [email protected] Point of contact for research lnteqritv Prolessor David Price as the Vice-Provost (Research) is the senior member ol staff responsible for overseeing research integrity for UCL, and the staff within Prolessor Price's Office manage such processes on a day-to- day basis. Ms Rowena Lamb, as the Head ol Research lntegrity, is the main point of contact for informdtion on research integrity within UCL, and her contact details are publicly available on the research integrily website on the 'contact us' webpage: https://www.ucl.ac.uUresearch/integritv/contact-us.
Raisinq concerna UCL's. Registrar, wendy Appleby,.is the designated 'Named person'lor UCL responsible for ensuring the integrity of proceedings conducted under the Procedurc lor investigating and resolving allegations oi misconduct in academic research. As 'Named Person', she is the individual with whom anyone wishing to raise concerns in respect of potential research misconduct should get in contact.
Itrustlhat this provides you with all the information you require. lf however you have further questions, I and my colleagues would be delighted to help you further.
Yours sincerely ru 0
University College tondon Gowerstreet London WClE 68T rel: +tA 10)207679 7234 Fax: +44 (O)20 7388 5412 www.ucl.ac.uk/provost Email: [email protected]
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
04 December 2017
Dear Mr Lamb
I am responding to your letter of 8th November regarding the Concordat on Research Integrity, to which the University of Bedfordshire, through Universities UK, is a signatory.
I am pleased to confirm that the University adheres to the principles of the Concordat. In relation to the Concordat recommendations, I can in addition confirm the following:
The University has a clearly identified point of contact for matters relating to research integrity – our Director of Research Development, who chairs the University’s Research Ethics Committee.
An additional route for raising issues would be through the University’s whistle-blowing policy and the contacts and processes identified therein.
The University’s Academic Board reports both annually, and periodically within the academic year, to the Board of Governors, and we would identify any cases of research misconduct, along with cases of other academic misconduct, through that process.
As to the publication of details of any such cases, were there any to report, I should add that we would need to consider the legitimate interests of a range of parties in undertaking to do so, and to bear in mind that in such cases the preservation of individual and contractual confidential would be among our considerations.
If you require further information, please contact me.
Yours sincerely
Bill Rammell Vice Chancellor
UNIVERSITYOF BIRMINGHAM
Vice-Chancellor and Princrpal 17 November 2017 Professor Sir David Eastwood DL
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons \) London SW1A OAA \
/1, o -^,r*--, esearch lntegrity
Thank you for your letter of 8 November. The University of Birmingham is committed to research excellence and to the rigorous pursuit of new knowledge. As such it dedicates itself to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly and scientific integrity in its research. lt expects all students, members of staff, and other researchers using University facilities or researching under the auspices of the University to work to these standards. The University of Birmingham is confident that it complies with the Concordat on Research integrity, although we view research integrity as an area where it is appropriate to strive for continuous improvement, work that is overseen hy a high le./el Ljniversity Committee for Research Governance, Ethics and lntegrity.
ln answer to your questions, I can confirm that the University does indeed present an annual statement to Council, and the 2016-2017 report will be presented to Council on 29th November. The statement will then placed on the University website at httos://www. birm inq ham. ac. uk/research/ oooortunities/inteoritv. asox
The senior member of staff with responsibility for research integrity is the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Transfer, Professor Tim Softley. The administrative contact for research misconduct is the Head of Research Governance and Ethrcs, Dr Sean Jennings. The University's Code of Practice for Research has a clear description of the process staff should go through if they suspect misconduct and the University also has a whistleblowing policy allows for members of staff with concerns about anything (which would include research) to contact the Registrar to make a confidential disclosure. People from outside the University who wish to raise concerns should contact the Head of Research Governance and Ethics, Dr Sean Jennings.
I trust this response is sufficient to answer your query and in line with your expectations.
Best wishes
I L,-.,e ,r-r-, Professor Sir David Eastwood l. V*.n Vice-Chancellor and Principal "*L k^- L, e r' /"r_ ' University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham 815 2TT United Ki6gdom t: +44(0)121 4144536 f: +44(0)1 21 414 4534 e: [email protected] w: www.birmingham.ac.uk
Professor Patrick McGhee MA (Glas) D Phil (Oxon) PG Dip (Bol) Assistant Vice Chancellor University of Bolton BL3 5AB +44 204 903002 [email protected]
The Right Honourable Norman Lamb MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Dear Mr Lamb, Research Integrity
Thank you for your letter of the 8 November 2017 which has been forwarded to me by the Vice Chancellor. In response to your queries on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee, I can confirm that the University of Bolton complies with all three aspects of the Concordat you reference. The URL for our statement on the Concordat can be found on our research ethics web pages as specified below: http://www.bolton.ac.uk/Research/Staff-Students-Examiners/Research-Ethics-Framework/Home.aspx This also includes our report for 2016-17 which confirms that, regarding ‘Formal Investigations of Research Misconduct in the Context of the Concordat’ that in 2016-17 there were no reports or investigations of research misconduct at the University of Bolton. This fact will be reported to our Board of Governors in the next update on research which they will receive in February 2018. In relation to the other principles within the Concordat, I can advise that the University is committed to: • maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research • ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards • 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 • using transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise. • working together to strengthen the integrity of research and to reviewing progress regularly and openly
We do this by having an extensive research governance infrastructure comprising a University Ethics Committee, separate School Ethics Committees and extensive training and online guidance on ethics and research conduct generally for all staff and students engaged in research. All research proposals are vetted by committees and there are specific forms which capture consistent and auditable information across projects while recognising the different levels of risk of different types of research. Further information regarding our arrangements for ensuring the integrity of our research work can be found here: http://www.bolton.ac.uk/Students/PoliciesProceduresRegulations/AllStudents/ResearchEthics/Home.a spx Finally, looking forward we are alert to the emerging and sometimes novel challenges of research in areas such as Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Biotechnology and continue to review best practice in these and related fields. As indicated by the REF2014, our research is of high quality and even though our research volume and breadth might not be as great as some other institutions, we do of course take our responsibilities in this area very seriously indeed. I hope this response satisfactorily addresses your queries. If there is any other information in this or related areas which would assist you or your Committee, please do let us know.
Yours Sincerely,
Professor Patrick McGhee Assistant Vice Chancellor cc Professor George Holmes, DL President and Vice-Chancellor
Response from University of Bradford (via email) Further to your letter of 8 November I can confirm that
• The University has identified a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity. The current appointee is recent in post and is identified here (https://www.bradford.ac.uk/search/index.php?q=bridgeman) • A named point of contact is set out in the whistleblowing policy here https://www.bradford.ac.uk/governance/media/governance/policies/Whistleblowing- code.pdf • The misconduct investigation policy is set out here.https://www.bradford.ac.uk/student-academic-services/breaches-appeals- complaints/complaints/staff-information/
Can you note that due to there being new members of staff in post and a review of the website taking place we have been unable to send you links to published reports under the misconduct policy but I can confirm that there were no investigations in the last financial year. The new appointees are currently reviewing all processes and procedures in any event and the material published online may change.
Thank you for your patience.
Freda Sharkey Deputy Secretary I Unlverslty of Brlghton
1 5th November 2017 Vice-Chancellor Professor Debra Humphris
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Mithrsg House Chair Lqr6s Road Brighton BN2 4AT Science and Technology Committee Telephone 01273 642000 House of Commons [email protected] London \ SWlA OAA
'2 N Dear Mr Lamb
Research lntegrity
Thank you for your letter of 8 November regarding the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into research integrity. With regard to the three specific recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research lntegrity, I can confirm that:
The University of Brighton has produced an annual statement on research integrity to its Board of Governors for the last three years. The statement for 2016/17 will be presented to the Board of Governors at its next meeting in November 2017, and will subsequently be made publicly available. The statement f or 2015116 is already available via this link httos://staff. brio hton. ac. uk/ma DU blic docs/Policies/University%20ofo/o2OBriohlono/o2 0Statement%20on%20research%20inteority%20201 5 1 0%2ofinal.pdf
The Chair of the University Research Ethics and lntegrity Committee, Professor Kate Bullen, oversees the area of research integrity, and the Research Policy Officer (Hilary Ougham) acts as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity. The contact details for the Research Policy Officer are available on the University's internal pages (Staffcentral) and on the enclosed flyer which is also available publicly here https.//staff. briq hton. ac. uUmac/oub ic docs/Policies/Research%20lnt tityok2]leaflet low%20res.pdf
The point of contact for raising concerns about the integrity of research is the Registrar and Secretary (currently Stephen Dudderidge), who is named as such in the University's Procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct in research, a revised version of which was approved by Academic Board in March 20j7. A copy of the procedure can be found here httos.//staff. briq hton. ac. uUmac/oublic docs/Policies/Research%2 QMisconduct%20Pr ocedure%20Ap rovedo/o2jv1 .1o/o20Julvo/02O2 017.pdf
With regard to the number of investigations undertaken in relation to research misconduct, this information is provided in our annual statement on research integrity. only one case was undertaken during the 2O16117 academic year. With the aim of supporting and strengthening research integrity throughout the institution, and ensuring that the university meets the recommendations of the concordat, a University- wide review of research integrity was undertaken during 2015/16, resulting in the implementation of a number of recommendations during 2016/17.
These included:
Production of a new Policy on Research lntegrity https://staff. brio hton. ac. uk/mac/ public docs/Policies/ Research-l nteo ritv-policv- approved pdf . Developing a process for the registration of projects involving sensitive research material o Production of a promotional leaflet on research integrity (copy enclosed) o lnvesting in an electronic system for managing research ethics applications . Provision of additional workshops and training in the areas of research ethics and research integrity o Production of a revised version of the Procedure for the investigation of allegations of misconduct in research (see bullet point 3 above) . Carrying out a redesign of the University's internal web pages on research ethics and research integrity to ensure a greater focus on integrity and inclusion of a wider range of materials and links (it is planned to develop a new external facing web presence in this area over the coming year)
The Unaversity is also a subscriber to the UK Research lntegrity Office (UKRIO)
ncerely
rofessor umphris Vice Chan r University of hton 2\ UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE at Cheltenham and Clouceste
15 November 2017 Stephen Marston Vice-Chancellor
Fullwood House, The Park Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Cheltenham, GL50 2RH Science and Technology Committee Telephone 01242 714169 Fax 012427144f8 House of Commons London W1 OAA
scitechcom@parliament. uk
l\c, La^J Thank you for your letter dated 8th November regarding Research lntegrity
The University of Gloucestershire is committed to the Concordat for Research lntegrity and Ethics. We are not a research intensive University, and we undertake research in carefully selected priority areas aligned to our academic strategy and research strengths. We develop and apply our research policies in a manner proportionate to the scale and nature of our research programme.
Since 2012, we have been actively using our established research ethics arrangements, led by the University Research Ethics Committee, to promote the importance of research integrity. The University Research Ethics Committee reports regularly to the University Research Committee, which oversees our research programme. That Committee in turn reports to Academic Board. We have established a University lntegrity and Ethics Committee, chaired by the Deputy Vice Chancellor with Council membership. whrch has oversight of the University's approach to matters of integrity and ethics. we have also appointed a member of staff to lead on ethics within each School.
We have not yet had a case of research misconduct, and therefore have not needed to provide a report to our council and to publish a report. we think this reflects the high degree of awareness of research integrity within the university, parfly due to the high propJrtion of our researchers who supervise doctoral candidates, and the need to advise and guide those students in this area. All outputs from our research are now highly visible thr6ugh our open access research repository.
For all.staff, including academic staff invorved In research, we have estabrished poricy and- procedures, agreed with our trade unions, to dear with misconduct (including l.".""r"'t misconduct). Those procedures rnclude whisfleblowing. For all students, in-cludint postgraduate research students, we have established policy, academic regutationi ano procedures for dearing with misconduct. Those arrangement, ,re not yet-visiote via our
Unuersiiy cl' Glouce_storshrre Th€ perr CtEttsnhem GLsO 2RH ftc Univer$ry o, Groucests'lhre i &wer6s. R.lrsr€rod nwn!.r 06023243. R.siner.d once. n" p"*,.cn"r,_Ln,. 6iii'i"_"rffi#jlT.l3{orl"T*fiffi]11fl,, e,s,""o extemal facing website, but are available to staff and students through our respective staff and student websites.
On this basis, our assessment is that we are meeting the principles in the Concordat in a manner proportionate to our research activity, along with the majority of its recommendations. We will continue to promote the importance of research integrity, and support colleagues who have any concerns. (ln
J\A^Gtt.-.
Stephen Marston Vice Chancellor PRIFYSGOL $lyndwr
Ein Cyf/Our Ref lamb_norman_S&Tcttee
Eich Cfl/our Ref 8 November 2017
13 November 2017
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair, Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SWIA OAA
1${ $t'i ttr
Dear Norman
Research lntegrity
The University does comply with the three recommendations of the Concordat as stated in your letter:
Present a short annual statement to their own governing body that provides a high level statement on any formal invesrrgtafions of research misconduct that have been undefiaken....To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publicly available.
The University publishes an annual report on behalf of the Board of Governors. The most recent repo nfor 2015116 is at https://qlvnfo.q lvndwr.ac. uk/course/view. php?id=41 (in Reports). The2016/17annual report will be considered atthe next Board of Governor Meeting.
Fu(her information on the University's research and the concordat can be found at the following site: httos://olvnfo.olvndwr.ac.uk/course/ rew oh ?id=41 §ion=5& qa=2.1357 40081. 1 89 8685398. 1 5 1 0558592-20209351.1 456503907
ldentify a senior member of staff to oyersee research integrity and to act as a flrsf point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity
The PVC for Research, Professor Richard Day is the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity.
. Provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under the auspices.
The university uses members of the senior management team to be the designated officer for the purposes of implementing the whisfleblowing procedures. The Whistleblowing policy and procedure can bsfound at: https //qlvnfo.olvndwr.ac.uUmod/folder/view. oho?id =4988
Ffordd vr W\ddqr ug. We.em LL l] z AW Cymru, v DU .4a'0i'o78 Mold 8oad, Wrexham LLlt 2AW Wates, ! /q0666 l!.{or 1978 U( a ,/oOOo8 tvwwqyndw.a..ul r{4(0)19/8 ! 290666 a+,t4(o)t9ls 29ooo8 awwwgtyndwra(!k Eluse. Gof@nred€ Rhr. tta2oaA R€9 srered Chairy No. ! t42ixA I trust that the above information helps to assure the Science and Technology Committee that the University complies with the recommendations of the Concordat
Yours sincerely
Professor ia Hinfelaar Vice-Cha lor and Chief Executive Tel/Ffon 01978 293000 [email protected]
PRIFYSGOL Styrr$.Xf I t-t
Response from University of Central Lancashire (via email) In reply to your letter dated 8 November I can provide the following information as requested.
1. URL of our most recent report relating to research integrity. The University Code of Practice for the Investigation of Allegations of Research Malpractice states that the activities of the University Research Integrity Sub- Committee reports to the University Ethics Committee which reports to Academic Board. Annually a report of the business of Academic Board is reported to the University Board of Governors. The Terms of Reference of the University Committees and sub-Committees are available in our Governance Manual at http://www.uclan.ac.uk/aqasu/academic-board-committees.php. The Research Integrity sub-Committee also has a separate external web page here: http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/environment/integrity.php. http://www.uclan.ac.uk/dat a_protection_act/index.php. The annual report from the Research Integrity sub- Committee is on the agenda for the meeting of the University Board of Governors scheduled to take place on 25 January 2018. Unreserved minutes will be published on the University website after the meeting.
2. The webpage where details of the named research integrity contacts can be found. The University Code of Practice for the Investigation of Allegations of Research Malpractice, identifies the University Office for Ethics and can be found via this link http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/environment/assets/investigation_of_allegations_of_ research_malpractice.pdf. The Terms of Reference of the Research Integrity sub- Committee identify the senior representatives who may be contacted. Additionally the University’s whistle blowing policy identifies the Vice Chancellor or the Chair of the University Board as the key contacts for raising concerns and overseeing investigations.
3. Our assessment of whether UCLan meets other recommendations of the Concordat. The University meets the commitments outlined in the Concordat, by promoting research integrity and the University policy during staff induction sessions and ongoing training sessions. We are committed to ensuring research is conducted according to ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards by using the University project governance processes which reviews and assess these aspects of research work conducted by staff and students. Using informal and formal systems of peer review for work to be undertaken there is a supportive environment to ensure all work is conducted appropriately and where further support and development needs are identified, they are supported. The University Code of Practice for the Investigation of Allegations of Research Malpractice provides a clear and concise document to inform staff of the transparent, robust and fair processes to manage allegations of research misconduct. As part of the review of processes and systems for research and researchers at the University, we will be assessing the current Code of Practice and its application and promotion within the University community. Yours sincerely, Lynne Livesey Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) University of Central Lancashire
Univers itv hicl-i'ester From: Professor.Jane Longmore
EI: 01243 816050 Tel: +44 (0) 1243 I 6000 e-mail i.lo ngmo re @ ch i.ac. u k Fo<: +44 (0) 243 816080
B shop O! College La Chichester West Suss PO I9 6PE The Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Cha ir Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A OAA i. 16 November 2017
Dear Mr Lamb
Thank you for your letter of 8 November. The University is compliant with the Concordat to Su pport Research lntegrity. ln particular, in the period since the University aligned itself with the Concordat in 2014 there have been no formal investigations of research misconduct. lnstances or absence of cases of research misconduct are considered at the University's Academic Board on an annual basis through the Annual Reportofthe Research Ethics Committee. Shouldanyformal investigations of research misconduct arise they would routinely be reported to the governing body through the Academic Board and made public.
The Deputy Vice Chancellor is the key contact for matters relating to Research Misconduct. The Director of Research is the contact for general enquiries. These arrangements were approved at the University's Academic Board in 2014 and are made available to the public on the University's website ht os: www.chi.ac.u k/resea rch-6/research-governa nce Oversight of matters pertaining to Research lntegrity is provided by the Research Ethics Committee chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Sustainability and Enterprise). Arrangements for 'whistleblowing' are described in 'Appendix E: Public lnterest Disclosure Policy' of the Financial Regulations.
You rs sincerely
Professor Jane Longmore Vice-Chancellor
/nnorut tsron"*,rr eV?-n Vemplovsn fEorry a,r.lS
Professor David J Richardson The Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Vice-Chancellor & President Sciences and Technology Committees The Vice-Chancellor’s Office House of Commons University of East Anglia London SW1A 0AA Norwich Research Park Norwich NR4 7TJ By email to: [email protected] United Kingdom
Email: [email protected] 28 November 2017 Tel: +44 (0)1603 592206 www.uea.ac.uk
Dear Norman
The University of East Anglia is fully committed to ensuring that all research undertaken by staff and students is carried out to the highest professional standards of research integrity, and that all researchers uphold the principles set out in the Universities UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
In response to your specific question, I can confirm that the University complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat listed in your letter:
1. The University presents a short annual statement to its Council which provides a summary of activities and issues relating to the support and implementation of research integrity, and processes relating to allegations of misconduct in research. It also includes the number of investigations undertaken when any allegation of misconduct in research is brought against any present or past member of staff of the University in respect of research undertaken while employed by the University and / or while registered as a student at the University. The 2016/17 statement has been made publicly available. (Concordat Commitment #5)
2. Overall responsibility for maintaining the highest standards of research integrity at the University rests with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation who is also the first point of contact to discuss research integrity matters. The University’s Research and Innovation Services (RIN) support me in this area, and have a Research Integrity Manager who is also the first point of contact for any informal queries or information on the University’s relevant policies or processes. RIN further advises on legal and regulatory requirements. (Concordat Commitment #3)
3. The Heads of Schools are the named points of contact for any concerns to be raised confidentially in relation to potential misconduct in research. (Concordat Commitment #4)
The University’s 2016/17 Annual Research Integrity Report, and the primary contacts for external and internal research integrity queries, concerns and research misconduct issues can be found on the University’s webpages at: https://portal.uea.ac.uk/rin/research-integrity. The primary contacts ensure that all research integrity matters are dealt with expediently and efficiently.
As a Supporter of the Concordat, the University meets other recommendations of the Concordat. In particular the University has governance arrangements in place in support of research. These include a number of research integrity policies and guidelines available to researchers on the University’s webpages: Guidelines on Good Practice in Research Research Ethics Policy Policy for Approving the Integrity of UEA Research and Innovation Related Activities and Funding Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Research Joint Standard Operating Procedures (UEA/NNUH) (for healthcare research) Open Access Policy Research Data Management Policy (Concordat Commitment #1)
The University gives due consideration to the needs of applying frameworks and standard operating procedures especially in areas of healthcare and is working towards widening this across all research areas. (Concordat Commitment #1)
The University is also committed to providing high ethical standards in research and safeguarding the dignity, rights and welfare of all those involved in research and the implementation of its results, as a fundamental part of its principles of research integrity. All research undertaken at the University that involves human participants (or their tissue or data) and animals, or which may have an impact on the environment or cultural objects, requires a form of ethical review. The University has an overarching committee, the University Research Ethics Committee (U-REC), to define the University's Research Ethics Policy and operational principles. It also has oversight of the University’s Research Ethics Subcommittees (S-RECs). The U-REC Chair and S-REC Chairs provide advice and guidance for researchers who are considering the ethical issues of a project. (Concordat Commitment #2)
To help researchers comply with institutional procedures relating to research ethics, and research integrity standards expected by the University, specific Research Ethics Guidance Notes covering a range of topics have been issued by UREC. These are available on the University’s webpages. (Concordat Commitment #2)
Internal university processes ensure that researchers have access to the funder’s terms and conditions that they need to operate their research grant under. (Concordat Commitment #2)
Staff in the University’s Research and Innovation Services, including the Research Integrity Manager, the Contracts Managers, and the Open Access and Research Data Officer provide training to researchers to help their understanding of the high standards of research integrity expected by the University. In the Schools of Study, there is also support to ensure that good research practice is firmly embedded in the research environment. (Concordat Commitment #3)
The University has Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Research, which outline clearly and articulately the confidential actions to be taken to ensure that all allegations of misconduct in research will be treated seriously and fairly and their merit investigated with integrity and sensitivity. In addition, the Procedures give due regard to the need to protect the funds and / or other interests of the research funder(s) to meet all contractual commitments, and to make recommendations with respect to whether appropriate professional body(ies) should be informed. (Concordat Commitment #4)
The University’s research integrity policies and guidelines are subject to a two- year rolling programme of reviews to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Updates may be necessary in light of updated legislation, revised funder guidelines, any major issues arising from their implementation, and minor amendments may be required to clarify the intent and aid ease of use. (Concordat Commitment #5)
I hope this response will assist the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into research integrity, and it conveys the importance the University of East Anglia places on the Concordat as part of its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like any further information.
Yours sincerely
David Richardson
Response from University of East London (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb, With regard to your correspondence on 8th November 2017, requiring confirmation that the University of East London has compiled an Annual Statement for Academic year 2016-17 under the commitments of The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, 2012, identified a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as a first point of contact for matters on research integrity and provided a named contact as a confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research. I can confirm that the University of East London has compiled an Annual Statement for Academic year 2016-17, which was approved by the University’s Board of Governors on 17th October 2017. The senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as a first point of contact for matters on research integrity is the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange and Chair of the University of East London’s Research Ethics Committee (UREC), is Dr Lisa Mooney. The named contact as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other concerns about the integrity of research is the University of East London’s registrar, Ms Holly Duglan. Please see the below screen shot that confirms that the Annual Statement for Academic year 2016-17 is publicly available and can be found here: https://www.uel.ac.uk/discover/governance/compliance The Annual Statement is also on the University of East London’s intranet, please see the second screen shot for confirmation. I can confirm that the University of East London meets the recommendations of the Concordat. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Catherine Fieulleteau Research Integrity and Ethics Manager Graduate School University of East London
Professor Jonathan Seckl BSc MB BS PhD FRCPE FMedSci FRSE
Vice Principal Planning Resources &
Research Policy
Moncrieff-Arnott Professor of th 28 November 2017 Molecular Medicine The University of Edinburgh Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Charles Stewart House Chair, Science and Technology Committee, 9-16 Chambers Street House of Commons Edinburgh, EH1 1HT Tel: +44 (0) 131 650 6443 LONDON SW1A 0AA Email: [email protected] www.ed.ac.uk
Dear Mr Lamb
Research Integrity Thank you for your letter dated 8 November 2017 to the Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea in which you ask us to indicate how we comply with the Universities UK ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. I note that the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which you chair, is continuing the work of the previous Committee by examining policy and practice in the UK research communities with regard to research integrity. To assist your Committee I have taken the points made in your letter in turn. Presenting an annual public statement covering any formal investigations of research misconduct and show measures take to support high standards of research integrity The University prepares an annual statement as required by the UUK Concordat. It is made publicly available each year after approval by the University’s Risk Management Committee which reports directly to University Court, our senior governance body. We are keenly aware that the maintenance of a culture of best practice in research is vital to maintain our world-wide reputation for excellent research. The URL for the relevant section of the University’s Research Ethics and Integrity webpages is given below. https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/research/research-integrity/introduction The University’s Research Ethics and Integrity report reflects the activities of the previous academic year. It provides a high-level summary of activities in each of the University’s three Colleges and their twenty Schools, as well as outlining cross-University activity, to support best practice in research integrity. We follow the recommendations of the UK Research Integrity Office in structuring the University level and Colleges reports. This approach helps show how we are embedding the UUK Concordat not only in University’s policies but also in our research and teaching community.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336
Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and act as a first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity As the Chair of the University’s Research Policy Group, I fulfil this role. Our University has a devolved structure. Enquiries about University policies that support research integrity as well as our research misconduct policy generally come to the nominated contact in the School in question. This nominated leader will draw in support from the relevant College Research Dean and the central University Research Policy Group. Schools have responsibility for ensuring new staff and research postgraduates are aware of the University’s policies relating to research integrity and the sources of information.
We are very aware that our commitment to research integrity must be embedded in University’s culture. As such, effective dissemination and training is vital. Our 40 FTE Institute of Academic Development plays a key role supporting our Colleges and Schools to spread best practice by developing material to train early career colleagues tailored to reflect different research integrity challenges facing different academic disciplines.
Provide a named point of contact to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices I am the named point of contact for confidential liaison with those who have concerns about research integrity. https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/research/research-integrity/introduction The University is currently reviewing its policy and practices relating to research misconduct to take account of the recent changes to the Research Councils terms and conditions of grants. As a recipient of RCUK awards, we are now required to report on informal as well as formal allegations of research misconduct. Part of this review includes an assessment of our current arrangements for the confidential reporting of research misconduct allegations, so that we can be confident these arrangements are as effective for research that crosses disciplinary boundaries as it is for research within one subject area. I note that the Science and Technology Committee wishes Universities to assess whether we consider we meet the other recommendations of the UUK Concordat. Through the actions of the University’s Research Ethics and Integrity Group, which reports to Research Policy Group, we take active steps to comply with the five commitments set out in the UUK Concordat. These include regularly reviewing our processes at School, College and University level to ensure they are fit for purpose as well as providing online training that is available to all staff and students. Our Research Ethics and Integrity Group also acts as a forum for the sharing of good practice. This group also regularly reviews the approach of other UK universities to ensure examples of best practice can be adopted.
I trust that this information will be useful to your Committee. The University will study the eventual report with great interest.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336
Yours sincerely
Professor Jonathan Seckl FRSE, FRCPE, FMedSci Vice-Principal Planning, Resources and Research Policy, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336
-{ {_r },i EvH f,d :5 K Y {} $; {; tr""t}L} {:,F15*E W,${.SFff $ *e,F-i,
*'i,;jheHterl !'ta r"t"r # n* fl i*t-le*:ir"*r.
15 November 2A17 Stephen Marston Vice-Chancellor
Fullwood House, The Park Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Cheltenham, GL50 2RH Science and Technology Committee Telephone A1242714169 House of Commons Fax A1242714489 London W1 OAA
scitechcom @parl ia ment. u k
\r r\L-u L-a a,r =*fJ r Thank you for your letter dated 8th November regarding Research Integrity.
The University of Gloucestershire is committed to the Concordat for Research Integrity and Ethics. We are not a research intensive University, and we undertake researcn in caretutty selected priority areas aligned to.our academic strategy and research strengths. We develop and apply our research policies in a manner proportionate to the scale and nature of our research programme.
Since 2Q12, we have been actively using our established research ethics arrangements, led by the University Research Ethics Committee, to promote the importance of reseaich integrity. The University Research Ethics Committee reports regularly to the University Research Committee, which oversees our research programme. Thai Committee in turn reports to Academic Board. We have established a University lntegrity and Ethics Committee, chaired by the Deputy Vice Chancellor with Council membership. which has oversight of the University's approach to matters of integrity and ethics. We have also appointed a member of staff to lead on ethics within qach School.
We have not yet had a case of research misconduct, and therefore have not needed to provide a report to our Council and to publish a report. We think this reflects the high degree of aWareness of research integrity within the University, partly due to the high proportion of our researchers who supervise doctoral candidates, and the need to advise and guide those students in thts area. All outputs from our research are now highly visible through our open access research repository.
For all staff, including academic staff involved in research, we have established policy and procedures, agreed with our trade unions, to deal with misconduct (including research misconduct). Those procedures include whistleblowing. For all students, including postgraduate research students" we have established policy, academic regulatrons and procedures for dealing with misconduct. Those arrangements are not yet visibte via our
University of The Gloucestershire Park Cheltenham GL50 2RH The Universiry of Gloucestetshire is a company limded by guarantee regtsiefed in Englanci park, &Wales. Regislered number: 06023243. Registered office The chetienham. GL50 2RH. Tel 0ti44 OOI Obrit www.olos.ac.uk externalfacing website, but are available to staff and students through our respective staff and student websites.
On this basis, our assessment is that we are meeting the principles in the Concordat in a manner proportionate to our research activity, along with the majority of its recommendations. We will continue to promote the importance of research integrity, and support colleagues who have any concerns.
t,? E;i , r Crl ,\. I \l ,bTL*q.
Stephen Marston Vice Chancellor Response from University of Greenwich (via email) Dear Mr Lamb, I write in response of your letter of 8th November to the Vice-Chancellor David Maguire in relation to research integrity. The University of Greenwich has not had any formal research integrity investigations during the academic sessions following the signature of the Concordat and for this reason there have not been any high level summary reports available on-line. However, prompted by your letter, we will make nil reports available to our governing body, the Court, and the public from now on. This has been started by a nil report to our Court in November 2017 for investigations in 2016/17. For the purpose of providing public visibility of our research integrity processes, we have created a web page which contains our Code of Practice, guidelines for investigation of research misconduct and the named member of staff who oversees research integrity in the institution, which is myself as Director of Greenwich Research & Enterprise. This can be found here: http://www2.gre.ac.uk/research/research-integrity The university also has a Public Interest Disclosure (whistleblowing) Policy, where the named point of contact is the University Secretary. The policy and procedures can be found here: https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/human-resources/public-interest-whistleblowing-disclosure-policy- and-procedure I believe therefore that we are now fully compliant with the obligations of the Concordat but we will be more than happy to provide any further information that may assist the Committee.
Regards,
Professor Peter Griffiths Director, Greenwich Research and Enterprise,
Response from University of Hertfordshire (via email) In response to the letter sent to our Vice-Chancellor, Professor Q McKellar from Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP dated 8 November 2017 concerning implementation of the 'Concordat to Support Research Integrity' I am pleased to confirm that the University of Hertfordshire is fully compliant with its recommendations.
As requested the URL of the page containing a link to our most recent report and also previous ones together with details of our named research integrity contacts is provided immediately below:
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.herts.ac.uk%2F research%2Fresearch-management%2Fethics-and-research- integrity&data=02%7C01%7Cscitechcom%40parliament.uk%7Cd073762478634a89b20108 d53594300e%7C1ce6dd9eb3374088be5e8dbbec04b34a%7C0%7C0%7C63647383293135 2753&sdata=JatZpRpFfrRDoxU%2FlKsv8tU2VjhkAqpRwqRShj2OOKk%3D&reserved=0
Please get back to me if you require any further information.
Regards
Professor John Senior Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) Professor of Communication Networks
Uniuersity of HuoonnsFrELD lnspiring [omorrow's proFessionals
20t0 ilrrftIIRI$ AWARD WINNER UNIVTRSITY oF THE YEAR
14 November 2017 ls u Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP aQns" N Cha ir -^ 1v ur$ Science and Technology Committee --. nl House of Commons Londo n SW1A OAA
Dear Mr Lamb,
Further to your request for information dated 8 November 2017, please find below the University of Huddersfi eld's response.
We can confirm that the University complies with the three recommendations ofthe Concordat to Support Research lntegrity as outlined in your request and further details can be found on our website at:
htt os:llresea rch-hud-ac.u k/strate ncordat-resParc h-intesn and
ht me ta ti documen histleblowi -Poli f
Yours sincerely, 1 Tracey L Taylor Freedom of lnformation Officer
Queensgat€, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK 6 t -44(0) 1484 422288 E +44{0) 1484516151 f,\ rNvrsrons tN peoplt V Chance lor:HRH The Duke ofYork. KG \,y' '',.!:i:.."5' w V ce -ChanceLlor: Prolessor Bob Cryan CBE DL FREng MBA DSc CEng FIEI FHEA
Response from University of Kent (via email) Dear Mr Lamb, Thank-you for your letter of the 8th November to our Vice Chancellor and President Prof. Karen Cox about Research Integrity. To support our drive to maintain the highest standards of research integrity, I can confirm that the University of Kent is compliant with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. As a signatory to the Concordat we are committed to:
• Presenting an annual statement to our governing body that provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken. This statement is publicly available and the latest annual report (2016- 2017) can be accessed here: https://research.kent.ac.uk/researchservices/wp- content/uploads/sites/51/2017/04/Annual-Report-for-Senate-2016-17.pdf • I, Professor Philippe De Wilde, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research & Innovation, am the senior member of staff responsible for overseeing research integrity and acts as a first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity (https://research.kent.ac.uk/researchservices/ethics/) • I, Professor Philippe De Wilde, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research & Innovation, am the University of Kent’s named point of contact to act as a confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research supported by the University (https://research.kent.ac.uk/researchservices/ethics/ ). The University also has a whistleblowing procedure which offers a range of points of contact for whistleblowers from inside or outside of the University: https://www.kent.ac.uk/governance/policies- and-procedures/whistleblowing.html The University of Kent is therefore compliant with the three recommendations of the Concordat referred to in your letter dated 8th November 2017. If you have any queries or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me or our university Research Ethics & Governance Officer, Nicole Palmer at [email protected].
Best wishes,
Prof. Philippe De Wilde FBCS FIMA Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research & Innovation University of Kent, UK
U N IVI.,RS Il'Y OF w LEICESTER
Rt Hon Normal Lamb MP Registrar and Chief Operating Officer Chair, Science and Technology Committee University of Leicester House of Commons University Road London Leicester LE1 7RH SW1A OAA UK
T +44 (0) 176 252 241t 20th November 2017 E dave.hall@ le.ac.uk
\ Dear Mr Lamb,
Research lntegrity
I am writing in response to yo u r letter of 8th Novem ber 2017 in relation to the inq u iry into research integrity currently being undertaken by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
The University of Leicester takes seriously its responsibility to ensure research is conducted to the highest standards and works closely with sector organisations such as UKRIO and ARMA to identify and disseminate best practice. i am happy to confirm that the University of Leicester complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat referenced in your Ietter.
1. We prepare an annual statement which is considered and approved by the University's Council The most recent report was approved in May 2017. The last four statements on research integrity can be found at a publicly accessible website: https://www2.le.ac. u k/off ices/researchsupport/ research-integrity 2. Professor Mark Jobling chairs our Research Ethics and lntegrity Training Group (httos://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/researchsuoport/resea rch intesritv), working closely with Dr Juliet Bailey from our Research and Enterprise Division. This Group provides a focus for our work on research integrity. Colleagues who have general queries about research integrity are encouraged to contact either of the above. 3. The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise is the named contact for those wishing to raise issues relating to the integrity of research conduct at the University of Leicester. He is named both on our website: (httos://www2.le.ac.u k/offices/researchsupo ort/policva ndstratesv/re search-code-of-cond uct- and-ethics-1/research -code-of-cond uct-and-ethics) and on the UKRIO website (http://ukrio.orslour-subscribers/contact-our-subscribers/).
The Research Ethics and lntegrity Training Group reviewed the UUK Progress report at their meeting in January 2017 and concluded that current practice at the University met with sector-wide good practice.
I trust the above information will be of interest to the Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Dave Hall Response from the University of Lincoln (via email) Dear Sir
Thank you for your enquiry regarding the University of Lincoln’s implementation of recommendations in the Research Concordat with respect to research integrity.
The University of Lincoln complies with the Concordat. In terms of the specific recommendations you have enquired about, I can confirm the following:
1. The University makes a statement regarding compliance with the Concordat to its Board of Governors in the Annual Assurance Return, but does not issue a separate statement summarising formal investigations conducted. We have an extremely small number of such investigations (perhaps one per annum), so we have not regarded this as a necessary or proportionate approach.
2. The University implements the UKRIO Research Misconduct procedure, and has a Named Person as specified in that procedure who acts as the first point of contact and oversees the process. The University’s research policies are linked to from the following WWW page: https://www.lincoln.ac.uk/home/research/strategyandpolicies/.
3. The University has a separate public disclosure (whistleblowers) policy, through which major concerns may be raised covering inter alia possible criminal offences, failure to comply with legal/regulatory obligations, and it is recognised that this might sometimes cover serious issues of research misconduct. Representations under this policy are made to the University Secretary. We would expect “whistle-blowing” that does not have this level or type of potential impact to go through the UKRIO research misconduct procedure.
Yours faithfully
Professor Andrew Hunter Deputy Vice Chancellor
Professor Janet Beer Vice-Chancellor
14 November 2017 Vice-Chancellor’s Office Foundation Building Brownlow Hill Liverpool Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP L69 7ZX Chair, Science & Technology Committee T 0151 794 2003 House of Commons London [email protected] SW1A 0AA
www.liverpool.ac.uk By email: [email protected]
Dear Mr Lamb
Thank you for your letter of 8th November 2017.
The University of Liverpool (hereafter ‘The University’) welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment towards the recommendations within the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
The University produces an annual statement on research integrity which outlines the work and progress undertaken during the previous year to uphold and strengthen the University’s framework for good research conduct and its governance. The Annual Statement can be found on the University’s Research Integrity webpages1. The most recent version of the statement is currently under review by the University’s research committees with an approval sign off date scheduled for 30th November 2017.
The Chair of the University Research Governance Committee (Prof Sarah O’Brien) acts as the ‘Named Person’ for the University; and in this capacity, acts as a first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity [email protected] .
Any person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under the auspices of the University can do so through the Named Person as part of the University’s ‘Policy on Misconduct in Research’2 or through the University’s ‘Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) Policy’3.
We hope that the above information confirms our compliance with the three recommendations of the Concordat reproduced in your letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further information to assist the Committee.
Yours sincerely
1. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/research-integrity/annual-statement/ 2. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/researchintegrity/Policy,on,misconduct,in,research.pdf 3. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/research-integrity/policies-guidance/
Response from University of Northampton (via email)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the letter sent to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Northampton on 8 November by the Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP.
As the person responsible for research at the University of Northampton, I have been asked by my Vice Chancellor to respond to the above letter.
I am pleased to confirm to the Science and Technology Committee that the University of Northampton complies with the recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity cited in the letter.
Our annual statement and other documentation about research integrity at the University of Northampton can be found at https://www.northampton.ac.uk/research/
Our senior member of staff that oversees research integrity is Mrs Jane Bunce, Director of Student and Academic Services ([email protected])
We have integrated research integrity into our existing Whistleblowing Policy and staff are directed to speak to their Faculty or Institute HR representative (a member of the University's HR Department). Non-employees are directed to Jane Bunce.
Yours faithfully,
Simon Denny
Professor Simon Denny
Holder of The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion
Executive Dean: Research, Impact and Enterprise
The University of Northampton
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) Hooke Professor of Experimental Physics Professor Ian A Walmsley FRS
University Offices, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD Tel: +44 (0)1865 280513 Fax: +44 (0)1865 270085 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ox.ac.uk
Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair 21 November 2017 Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Lamb
I write in response to your letter of 8 November to Vice-Chancellor Richardson, requesting further information about how the University of Oxford complies with the recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
You may remember that I gave evidence on 24 October 2017, on behalf of the Russell Group, to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into research integrity. I write now in my capacity as Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) and Chair of the Research and Innovation Committee at the University of Oxford.
In response to your request, I am pleased to confirm that the University of Oxford complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (reproduced below) as follows.
1. [Employers of researchers should] present a short annual statement to their own governing provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken….. To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publicly available
The University of Oxford regards research integrity as a core value and has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that it is embedded in its research culture and activity. It has always been a strong supporter of the Concordat since it was first introduced in 2012. In line with its recommendations, for the past three years the University has produced an annual high-level statement about formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken (including, for transparency purposes, information about allegations of misconduct received and the outcome of these, even if they did not result in a formal investigation). As also recommended in the Concordat, the statements have included other summary information about the work undertaken by the University to support and strengthen understanding and application of research integrity issues. Each of these reports has been discussed by the University’s Research and Innovation Committee, to ensure that they receive attention from and scrutiny by the appropriate senior University body. The Research and Innovation Committee is a Committee of the University’s Council and has delegated authority to approve these statements on behalf of Council. Once approved, these statements are added to the University’s research integrity web page at https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/integrity/reports. The statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are all publicly available here; the 2017 statement will be considered by the Committee in early 2018. 2
2. {Employers of researchers should] identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity.
As stated within the University’s Academic Integrity in Research: Code of Practice and Procedure (at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/personnel/cops/researchintegrity/), the Registrar (Professor Ewan McKendrick) is the named senior officer within the University with responsibility for receiving and dealing with formal allegations of misconduct in research. On a day-to-day basis, the Senior Assistant Registrar for Research Integrity (Ms Kathryn Dally) is the officer with administrative responsibility for overseeing research integrity matters. She is named as a contact point for those wanting more information about matters of research integrity. This information is available from the research integrity web page at https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/integrity/misconduct .
3. [Employers of researchers should] provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices.
The Senior Assistant Registrar for Research Integrity (Ms Kathryn Dally) is the named contact point for anyone wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research conducted under the auspices of the University of Oxford. This information is available from the research integrity web page at https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/integrity/misconduct. The University’s Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) Code of Practice is available at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/personnel/cops/pid/.
More broadly, I should also like to emphasise the point I made when I gave evidence to the Committee, namely that the critical issue is to inculcate a culture of integrity, and that implementing the recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity have been an important part of cementing that culture, particularly in helping to improve the transparency of how universities are approaching this.
There is little evidence (from the experiences of countries which have established a regulatory body) to suggest that further UK regulation or oversight of how research is conducted would lead to improved standards in research. There is also a possibility that increased regulation might hinder potential research collaborations with international or industrial partners, due to the need to comply with further regulations.
Universities are responsible for the proper conduct of their employees and students and it is in their interest to ensure that their research meets the highest standards. The University of Oxford supports the approach advocated by the Concordat as more appropriate and likely to be more effective than introducing any new systems to regulate research activity. This approach emphasises the importance of providing an environment which fosters rigorous and responsible research through strong leadership and effective support, training and mentoring of researchers, but also requires that regularly-reviewed policies, systems and processes be in place to ensure transparency, accountability and compliance with related legislation. This position also ensures 3
that institutions have the flexibility to adapt their approaches to promoting research integrity to suit their particular environments.
I hope you will find this information of use and that it will serve as further evidence of the University of Oxford’s commitment to the highest standards of integrity in research. The quality of our research is of utmost importance to our ability to undertake our mission, and to remain a world- leader in that endeavour.
Yours sincerely
Professor I A Walmsley FRS Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor Office of the Vice-Chancellor Professor Steven Mithen BA(HONS) MSC PHD FSA FSA(SCOT) FBA Whiteknights House +44 (0)118 378 7113 Whiteknights, PO Box 217 [email protected] Reading RG6 6AH
phone +44 (0)118 378 7113 email [email protected]
Rt Hon Norman Lamb, MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
27 November 2017
- Dear Mr Lamb
Research Integrity
Thank you for your letter of the 9 November 2017 to Sir David Bell, Vice-Chancellor, at the University of Reading, regarding Research Integrity. As Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice- Chancellor for Research & Innovation, I am responding on behalf of Sir David.
I am pleased to learn that the Science and Technology Committee is holding an inquiry into research integrity because this is of the highest priority for those working within universities, those funding research (whether from the public or private sector) and the users of research outcomes.
The University of Reading takes research misconduct most seriously and has robust procedures to investigate any potential cases of misconduct and disciplinary procedures should they be required. Our definition of research misconduct and procedures are contained within the University’s Code of Good Practice in Research, which is available at http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/office-of-the-university- secretary/UCOGPR_UBRIappro25Nov13_updateApr2017.pdf.
With regard to the three specific questions in your letter:
1. The University of Reading does not currently report on matters of research misconduct to our governing body but are now actively exploring whether and how we might do so, and will keep the Science and Technology Committee informed.
2. Dr Mike Proven is the Head of Quality Assurance in Research for the University. The University’s Code of Good Practice in Research names the University Secretary, currently Dr Richard Messer, as the first point of contact for anyone to initiate disciplinary action on the grounds of research misconduct. http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/office-of-the-university- secretary/UCOGPR_UBRIappro25Nov13_updateApr2017.pdf
LIMITLESS POTENTIAL | LIMITLESS AMBITION | LIMITLESS IMPACT Page 2
3. The University has a Whistleblowing Policy that is available on its website with a named point of contact for whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices.
This policy is available for you to view at: http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/office-of-the-university-secretary/Public- Interest-Disclosure-Policy-CURRENT_(2).pdf
Should the inquiry wish to have any further information from the University of Reading, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Yours sincerely
Professor Steven Mithen
cc: Dr Richard Messer, University Secretary, University of Reading Mrs R Helsby, Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Officer, University of Reading
Vice-Chancellor Universityof Professor Paul O'Prey CBE Roehampton London University of Roehampton Roehampton Lane LondonSWI 5 5PJ +44 (0)208392 3000 www.roehampton .ac. u k Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SWIA 0AA
29 November2017
Dear Mr Lamb
Researchlntegrity
Thank you for your letter of 8 November 2017. lam confident that the Universityof Roehampton complieswith the recommendationsof the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, and particularlythose recommendations specified in your letter. shave attached a copy of the Statement to The UniversityCouncilwho met on Monday 27 November 2017. Our commitment to the Research concordat can be found on our website :
Yours sincerely
Professor Paul O'Prey CBE Vice-Chancellor
Roehampton University is a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. t Annual Statement on Research Integrity 2016/17 The University of Roehampton is a signatory to the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, the nationalframework for good research conduct and its governance. In accordance with the recommendationof the Concordat, this statement outlines how research integrityis supported and strengthenedat the Universityof Roehampton. It also provides a statementon any cases of research misconduct or formal investigations that have been undertaken in 2016/7 1. Environment for research integrity The Deputy Provost for Research and External Engagement has responsibility for ensuring that the University of Roehampton meets its obligations and observes best practice in research integrity. Anyone who has any concerns or wishes to raise any issues in relationto research and its integrityat the University is able to communicate with the University Registrar as an independent point of contact, and can be confidentthat their anonymitywill be protected. 2. Policy framework The followingpolicies and procedures support a rigorous approach to ensuring research integrityat the University of Roehampton: e Code of Good Research Practice e Ethics Guidelines e Data Protection Policy e Health & Safety Policy e IntellectualProperty Policy e Public Interest Disclosure Policy © Disciplinary Procedures(Star) e Student Disciplinary Regulations 3. Ongoing activities to support research integrity e Research Committee provides leadership for all research related matters at the University of Roehampton, and includes representatives from all academic departments and the postgraduate research community; e Research students are supported by the Research Students Degree Programme, an ongoing training programme covering all aspects of research activity and personal development; 8 Research Supervisors are supported by training, provided by SEDA (Staff and Educational Development Association); 8 The Ethics Committee provides continued oversight and review of ethical considerations of proposed research activity, and provides assurance, reportingto Senate; © The role of Ethics Representatives, in each academic department, has been enhanced in 2017 in order to ensure best practice across all disciplines at the institution; Page I of2 e Research Leads have been appointed in each academic departmentin 2017, to provide oversight and leadership for all research activity, including ensuring research integrityl e The University's Legal Secretary and Contracts Officer provides support for researchers who are conductingresearch, and ensure that it adheres to the highest standards of research integrity. 4. Research Misconduct e in 2016/17there have been no cases of research misconductreported against staff or postgraduateresearch students. 5. Conclusion The University continues to promote and prize research the highest standards of research integrity. We will continueto develop our policies and practice to ensure that our research staff are supported in adopting a rigorous approach to research and its integrity. Identifiedactionsfor2017/8 A review of the current Code of Good Research Practice, and related research policies and processes is being undertakenin 2017/8; e The research staff training programme will be extended to promote best practice in research integrity,and the provisionof open data and research in 2017/8. Claire Ozanne Deputy Provost for Research and External Engagement November 2017 Page 2 of2 Response from University of Salford (via email) Dear Mr Lamb Thank you for your letter of 8th November regarding the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity. I am pleased to confirm that the University of Salford is in full compliance with the Concordat; this is monitored annually through our Council Audit and Risk Committee, and managed through our Senate Research and Enterprise Committee. Our statement of commitment to and compliance with the Concordat is given on our Research Governance web page, which is publicly accessible: http://www.salford.ac.uk/ethics/research-governance. The page contains links to the relevant policies and procedures which cover research governance and ethics, and addresses the recommendations outlined in Concordat and your letter: • Annual statement on formal investigations of research misconduct: in 2016/17 there were no formal investigations of research misconduct. This point is noted on the website • Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on research integrity: The Deputy Vice Chancellor has oversight of all matters of research integrity, supported by the Dean of Research. For day to day enquiries regarding research integrity, researchers are signposted towards the Associate Director Research. • Provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices: The Associate Director Research is the Named Person identified in the University’s Policy and Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Research. The University Secretary is the named contact under the whistle blowing policy. Contact details are given on the web pages. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards Professor Karl Dayson FRSA Dean of Research The Old Fire Station University of Salford | United Kingdom Response from University of Sheffield (via email) Dear Sir / Madam I am providing the response from the University of Sheffield to the request dated 8th November 2017 from the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Rt Hon Norman Lamb, regarding Research Integrity. In relation to the three recommendations in the Concordat: 1. The annual statement The University of Sheffield produces an annual statement that is submitted to the University Council each November. This is recorded in the minutes of the Council and is on our website. Minute 7.6 refers : https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.679985!/file/17-02- 06_02.pdf The full statement is here: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.656205!/file/Statement_to_Council.pdf 2. Senior member of staff to oversee Research Integrity. In my role as Vice-President (Research and Innovation) I have overarching responsibility, with a member of the Research Office providing support. This is documented on our website here: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.667322!/file/Statement-re-responsibility-for-RI- queries.pdf 3. Whistleblowing Our policy is outlined in the following document: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/guidance/academicstaff/researchmisconduct 'How to report misconduct' This clearly articulates the points of contact. We continue to take Research Integrity very seriously, and have recently undertaken a pan university review of research integrity approaches and management. We are using this exercise to develop areas that require further development. With all best wishes, Professor Dave Petley Vice-President (Research & Innovation) University of Sheffield Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons LONDON SW1A 0AA 27 November 2017 HL/ko Dear Rt Hon Lamb Re: Science and Technology Committee review of research integrity across the research sector Thank you for your letter dated 8 November 2017, I am pleased to provide a response from the University of South Wales. The University considers matters related to research integrity seriously and these are firmly embedded within our research policies and practices. To strengthen this, in August 2017, the University conducted a review of our institutional frameworks that both underpin and promote research integrity, including Research Ethics, and Research Governance. This review has identified a series of recommendations and a programme of work that will further strengthen our resilient approach to ensuring institutional compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. The main findings of this review identified specific aspects of our institutional provision that should be enhanced. We will do this by increasing provision of training in matters relating to the preservation of research integrity, increasing the visibility and facilitation of Research Ethics review, and the implementation of a new monitoring framework to ensure research governance compliance across all disciplines. This programme of work is intended to be complete by the summer of 2018. Regarding the specific questions posed within your letter: 1) Currently, instances of research complaint are first considered on an individual basis by the university body that is most appropriate. Where instances of research activity lead to credible cases of staff misconduct these are considered via the Staff Disciplinary procedure, overseen by the Human Resources department. We as an institution do not currently publish information related to instances of research misconduct that have been investigated formally, we believe there are confidentiality issues embedded within such a disclosure that should be protected. Recently the University has adopted the UK RIO process for managing Research Misconduct and this has been factored into our current programme of work to enhance the resilience of Research Governance arrangement across the University. Through our institutional review we have identified that a comprehensive research activity report should be made publically available to stakeholders and the wider public which will commence from 2018. This increased reporting capability has been made possible by our recent investment (2016) and implementation (2017) of a Comprehensive Research Information Management system. 2) Until recently, our Assistant PVC Research has been responsible for overseeing the institutional ‘research integrity’ provision. With the recent departure of our APVC, this responsibility is temporarily with our Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic). We are actively recruiting a PVC Research and the role holder will assume responsibility once they are in post. 3) Currently reported matters of research misconduct are directed to either the Research Governance Officer, the Head of Research and Innovation Services, or the Director of Research and Business Engagement as our first point of contact. All reports of research misconduct are treated confidentially with anonymity being provided as far as feasibly possible. Yours sincerely Professor Helen Langton Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Sally Mapstone Principal and Vice-Chancellor StA/SLM/sjm/lamb151117 15 November 2017 Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Dear Mr Lamb, Thank you for your letter of 8 November 2017. You have my assurance that the University of St Andrews is fully committed to ensuring that the highest standards of research integrity are adopted by our institution and by our researchers. We are supportive of the principles laid out in the ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. In terms of compliance and the three points you raise, I can confirm that: 1. The University of St Andrews provides a short annual statement on research integrity to our Court (through our Audit and Risk Committee) which provides a high level statement on any formal investigations on research misconduct. This annual statement is also made publicly available. The annual statement for 2015-16 can be found at the following link: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/research-policy- office/documents/Research%20Integrity%20Statement.pdf 2. The Vice Principal for Research and Innovation has a clear remit to act as the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity. For clarity, and because of the importance of research integrity, we have recently established a separate email account for anyone with queries on matters of research integrity at [email protected]. In addition, we have recently increased research support for integrity with the appointment of a Senior Research Policy and Integrity Manager. 3. The University of St Andrews also has in place a named third party to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research. Details on our whistleblowing policy can be found at the following link: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/staff/policy/hr/whistleblowingpolicy/ College Gate, North Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AJ, Scotland, UK T: +44 (0)1334 462545 F: +44 (0)1334 462543 E: [email protected] The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No: SC013532 More broadly we recognise that the ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’ provides a framework for continuing reflection and improvement. In response to your specific requests: The URL of the most recent University of St Andrews Annual Statement can be found at https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/research-policy- office/documents/Research%20Integrity%20Statement.pdf The University of St Andrews Research Integrity webpage with the named research integrity contacts can be found at https://www.st- andrews.ac.uk/staff/research/policies/researchintegrity/ The University’s assessment is that, at this time, the University of St Andrews is compliant with the principles of the Concordat and that we continue to review and improve our policies and procedures in this important area. Yours sincerely, Professor Sally Mapstone Principal and Vice-Chancellor College Gate, North Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AJ, Scotland, UK T: +44 (0)1334 462545 F: +44 (0)1334 462543 E: [email protected] The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No: SC013532 Response from University of Stirling (via email) Dear Mr Lamb In response to your letter to our Principal & Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gerry McCormac, dated 8 November 2017, I am pleased to confirm that the University of Stirling operates in full compliance with the 2012 Concordat to Support Research Integrity. I provide below the specific information requested under each of your headings. 1. Present a short annual statement to their own governing body that […] provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken… To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publicly available; The University Research Ethics Committee reports, on an annual basis, to the University Court. Papers and minutes from the University Court are published online: https://www.stir.ac.uk/policyandplanning/governanceandcommittees/universitycourt/u niversitycourtminutes/. There have been no formal investigations of research misconduct, but if there were, these would be included in the annual report. The most recent report will be available from the above link once it is finalised. 2. Identify senior members of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity The University’s Director of Research & Innovation Services, who is a member of the Senior Management Team, has responsibility for overseeing matters of research integrity at the University. Key contacts for matters of research integrity and the University’s ethics committees are available online: https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/integritygovernanceethics/researchethics/keycontacts / 3. Provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison for whistle-blowers or any other person within to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices. The University’s Whistleblowing and Public Interest Disclosure policy covers acts including (but not limited to): financial malpractice or impropriety or fraud; dangers to health and safety or the environment; criminal activity; academic or professional malpractice; improper conduct or unethical behaviour; failure to comply with a legal obligation or with the Statutes and Ordinances of the University; attempts to conceal any of the above. The policy provides a list of contacts, with the designated contact being the Deputy Secretary of the University. The University’s Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct names the Deputy Principal for Research as the contact for anyone wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research under our auspices. I trust that this information meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further details. Yours faithfully Dr John Rogers Director of Research and Innovation Services The University of Stirling Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Science and Technology Committee Vice-Provost, Research and Innovation House of Commons Attila Emecz London SW1A 0AA Senate House Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH T: +44 (0)1483 682739 17 November 2017 [email protected] www.surrey.ac.uk Dear Mr Lamb Research Integrity Thank you for your letter of 8 November to the Vice-Chancellor. I can confirm that the University of Surrey strongly upholds the values of research integrity and that it complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity as noted in your letter. The University’s Research Integrity and Governance Office (RIGO) produces an Annual Integrity Statement which is ratified by the Research Integrity and Governance Committee, received by Senate, and published on our external website. The Annual Statement includes details of activity and records any misconduct cases that have been investigated. The most recent statement can be found here: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/research/our-approach/integrity-and-governance The University of Surrey has identified senior members of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as a point of contact. The University has identified the Associate Deans (Research) and the Director of the Doctoral College to be these named contacts and details are provided on the external website, within the Who to Contact section. The Associate Deans (Research) are further supported by the Research Integrity and Governance Committee which is chaired by Professor Vince Emery, Senior Vice-President (Global Strategy and Engagement) & Professor of Translational Virology. The research misconduct guidance available on the University of Surrey website and the University’s Code of Practice on Handling Cases of Research Misconduct, available here https://www.surrey.ac.uk/policies/code_of_practice_on_handling_allegations_of_misconduct.htm - also highlights alternative routes for individuals to raise concerns, via an online pro-forma, or by contacting the RIGO directly. Individuals are also signposted to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), of which the University of Surrey is a member, should any individual wish to raise a concern outside of the auspices of the University. The University of Surrey is fully committed to the concordat and maintains an action plan that is reviewed and updated by the Research Integrity and Governance Committee. The action plan ensures the University remains compliant with the concordat and any fundamental changes in research related policy whilst specifically looking to extend best practice and to improve the provisions made by the University to its members of staff through training, ethics processes or handling misconduct. Should you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Attila Emecz Vice-Provost Research and Innovation (interim) Supplementary response from the University of the Highlands and Islands (via email) Further to your phone call earlier today, I can confirm that: 1. As indicated in our earlier submission, the University includes a brief report on research integrity as part of a wider report for the University Court which covers a number of compliance matters. This report, along with all open Court Papers, is not available on the University’s website. 2. However the University does have a Publication Scheme and through this the relevant paper is available on request, as is any open (non-confidential) Court paper. 3. The Minutes of University Court are available on the University’s website. My Colleague, Roger Sendall, Head of Governance and Record’s Management will be able to provide further detail should you require this. Regards Neil Simco Rt Hon Norman Lamb, MP Chair,Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA 27th November 2017. Dear Mr Lamb, Research Integrity Thank you for your letter of 8th November, addressed to Professor Mulholland, on the subject of Research Integrity. I would like to submit the undernoted response on behalf of the University of the Highlands and Islands. In relation to that element of the concordat relating to the provision of a high level statement to the governing body – namely the University Court in our case – we have decided to include this as part of an annual monitoring report which covers a variety of considerations, such as data protection, protection of vulnerable groups, public interest disclosures and fraud and irregularities. The most recent report contains the following undernoted statement in regard to Research Integrity: “Research Integrity Within the period January to November 2017, no formal investigations of research misconduct has been undertaken by the University’s research office.” Your second question relates to the identification of a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to be a first point of contact. Within the University of the Highlands and Islands, this person is the Vice-Principal (Research). In relation to your query about a point of contact to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers, this is handled through the University’s Public Interest Disclosure Policy. Academic and professional malpractice as well as improper conduct and unethical behaviour are explicitly within scope, and there is also a clear commitment to treat disclosures in a confidential and sensitive manner. The named officer in the policy is the University’s Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, with additional provision for any disclosures which may relate to that postholder. In addition the University has a fraud response plan, and the named officer for overseeing the policy and its implementation as may be required is again the Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, with further additional provision for any matter involving that postholder. Any matter to do with fraud and research projects would be within scope for this policy. More broadly the University is committed at all times to ensuring that research carried out in its name meets the commitments that are articulated in `The Concordat to Support Research Integrity`. In relation to the fifth commitment, the University will be putting in place a review of our approach to research integrity in the first part of 2018, and the University will make any adjustments that are required after thereafter. Yours Sincerely, Professor Neil Simco, Assistant Principal for Curriculum Growth and Acting Vice-Principal (Research) Response from the University of West of England (via email) I write in reply to the enquiry on Research Integrity received from Norman Lamb MP. I apologise for the delay in responding to this. I can confirm that UWE Bristol is compliant with the three aspects of research integrity and the Concordat raised – and, we believe, with all other aspects of the Concordat, which we fully support. Comments relating to each or the three issues raised are included below: 1. Any cases of research misconduct are included in the annual report to governors on research governance. There were no cases of research misconduct to report in the academic year 206/17. 2. Our research governance procedures including for research misconduct, and the relevant contacts are included in our research governance web pages which can be publically accessed at: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/research/researchgovernance.aspx 3. ‘Whistleblowing’, specifically, is covered in section 20 of the UWE Bristol Code of Good Research Conduct on Public Interest Disclosure, accessible at: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/research/researchgovernance/codeofgoodresearchconduct.a spx Do get in touch if we can be of any further assistance to the Committee Professor Martin Boddy Pro Vice Chancellor, Research and Enterprise Response from University of the West of Scotland (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Professor Mahoney has asked that I respond on behalf of the University of the West of Scotland to your inquiry into research integrity on the 8th November 2017. I can confirm that the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) is committed to progressing the implementation of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and I am pleased to inform you that we believe we are fully compliant with its recommendations. To date, we have not had the requirement to produce an annual statement to the Court of the University of the West of Scotland (the governing body) as there have not been any formal investigations up to 2017. It should be noted, however, that although there has not been a requirement to report so far, our process is such that there is a mechanism for ensuring any future formal investigations are appropriately reported. The Senior member of staff responsible for overseeing research integrity and who acts as the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity is myself, Prof Ehsan Mesbahi, Vice Principal and Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic). Since October 2015, UWS has a Public Interest Disclosure Policy & Procedure (Whistleblowing). The policy owner and named point of contact who acts as confidential liaison for whistle-blowers is Donna McMillan, University Secretary to Court and Director of Corporate Support As a supporter of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, UWS has made a number of commitments to strengthen the integrity of our research and achieve excellence in our research and scholarship. Our Code of Ethics establishes the University’s approach to raising the ethical awareness of staff and students, and ensuring that all that we do is underpinned by global and future-focussed principles of fairness and opportunity. This Code includes references to our policies and guidelines that implement our commitment to these principles. It also sets out the mechanisms for ethical monitoring and review of all our activities. Our website is being developed to offer up-to-date information and guidance on research integrity matters for researchers, professional service staff and visitors to the university. I hope this is helpful and reassures you that the University of the West of Scotland is fully committed to research integrity. Yours sincerely, Professor Ehsan Mesbahi Professor Ehsan Mesbahi Vice Principal and Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) University of the West of Scotland Rt Honourable Norman Lamb, MP Chair, Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A OAA 28 November 2017 Dear Mr Lamb Re. Research Integrity I write in response to your invitation to update on the University’s implementation of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (8th Nov 2017). Regarding the three points outlined in your letter I can confirm that: 1. The University has not had any formal investigations of research misconduct. Should it do so, however, it would prepare an annual statement for the governing body in accordance with the recommendations of the Concordat. The University has robust research governance arrangements. The minutes of the Ethics Committee are received by both the University’s Research Committee and Research Degrees Committee, both of which are Standing Committees of the Senate, the University’s senior academic committee. The minutes of Senate are received by the University Council. The Research Committee is responsible for providing advice and guidance to Senate on research issues. It is charged with facilitating, encouraging and supporting quality research across the University in all its forms. The Research Committee’s terms of reference include monitoring the work of the Research Ethics Committee. Senate’s terms of reference in turn include ensuring that the University has and implements appropriate regulations, policies and procedures relating to taught and research provision for assuring academic standards. Membership includes members of the Senior Directorate and an observer from the University Council. Through this committee structure the University’s governing body will be appraised of any formal investigations of research misconduct. 2. The University has a named senior member of staff which overseas Research Ethics and Integrity, and acts a first point of contact for those wanting more information on the matter. The member of staff is Professor Jill Venus, Chair of the Ethics Committee. 3. The University’s Financial Regulations contain a Whistleblowing clause, which states that points of contact for disclosure in the context of the Public Interest Disclosure Act are: the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the Vice-Chancellor, Chair of Council or Chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. The University’s Research Ethics and Integrity Code or Practice and further information regarding the terms of reference and working methods of the Ethics Committee can be found at the following URL: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/research/research-ethics/ Details regarding point 2 can be found at the following URL: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/research/research-ethics/ethics-committee-/ Details regarding point 3 can be found at the following URL: The University’s Research Ethics and Integrity Code or Practice and further information regarding the terms of reference and working methods of the Ethics Committee can be found at the following URL: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/research/research-ethics/ Details regarding point 2 can be found at the following URL: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/research/research-ethics/ethics-committee-/ Details regarding point 3 can be found at the following URL: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/research/research-ethics/research-misconduct/ Yours sincerely Professor Medwin Hughes DL Vice-Chancellor 28 November 2017 FAO: Rt. Hon. Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons, London, SW1 0AA (Provided by email only to [email protected]) Re. Research Integrity information request Below is the response from the University of Westminster to the request for information from the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee inquiry into Research Integrity, in particular the research sector’s progress in implementing the 2012 ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. Firstly, please see below the response to the three specific commitments outlined in the request for information letter from you (dated 8th November), and confirmation of the University’s compliance with these: Research Integrity Annual Narrative Statement: this is made publicly available at the following URL: https://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/research-framework Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact: The senior member of staff is Professor Graham Megson (Acting Vice Chancellor) and the first point of contact, as listed at the public URL above, is: Bob Odle [email protected]. Provide a named point of contact…to act as liaison for whistle-blowers: The named point of contact for reporting suspected research misconduct is Professor Andrew Linn (or Professor Malcolm Kirkup) and their details can be found on the University’s publicly accessible Research Misconduct web-pages: https://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/research-framework/managing-allegations-of-research- misconduct The University carried out an institutional self-assessment of its compliance with the ‘Concordat to support research integrity’ in early 2017 using UK Research Integrity Office’s (UKRIO’s) Tool-kit for self-assessment. Advice was also sought from UKRIO following this exercise and their response confirmed the University had conducted a comprehensive review. Finally, the University meets the recommendations of the Concordat in the following way: 1. Commitment #1: We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research: the University has a broad-ranging policy base and works to disseminate this via various channels to new and existing staff, doctoral researchers and students. The implementation of these policies is carried out via a number of University Committees and Working Groups relating to Research which then feed into the wider internal community via updates, development and training. Please see Annual Narrative Statement. Academic Registrar’s Department c/o Research Committee Secretary University of Westminster, 101 New Cavendish Street London W1W 6XH T: +44 (0)20 7911 5051 E: [email protected] westminster.ac.uk 2. Commitment #2: We are committed to ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards: the University has a well- established ethical consideration structure and frameworks surrounding this. Please see Annual Narrative Statement. 3. Commitment #3: We are committed to 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: the University has introduced an overarching policy statement document: Framework for Research Governance publicly available at https://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/research-framework which outlines and sign-posts key areas for researchers to enable them to conduct their research within a framework of good research practice. The University is committed to the ‘Concordat for the Career Development of Researchers’ and has received the HR Excellence in Research Award. Doctoral Researchers follow the Graduate School’s Doctoral Researcher Development Programme (DRDP) based on Vitae’s Researcher Development Framework. The University has implemented the Virtual Research Environment (VRE) system to enable management by researchers, doctoral researchers and professional support staff around matters relating to research; in the areas of outputs management, research governance and ethics, grant applications, project proposals, public staff profiles, and doctoral researcher and supervisor sections. Please see Annual Narrative Statement. 4. Commitment #4: We are committed to using transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise: the University regularly updates its policies and procedures relating to research, including the Procedure for Managing Allegations of Research Misconduct which is publicly available at: https://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/research- framework/managing-allegations-of-research-misconduct . Information regarding updates to the Research Governance Framework of the University are made at the Supervisor’s Forum. Information around the Research Governance Framework is also provided at Induction. Doctoral Researchers are informed of updates via internal circulars, and a more in-depth introduction to the Procedure and the University’s commitment to dealing with research misconduct, is given at the Doctoral Researcher Development Programme (Workshop 1). 5. Commitment #5: We are committed to working together to strengthen the integrity of research and to reviewing progress regularly and openly: the University works towards strengthening research integrity via its Research Integrity Task and Finish Group (tasked to undertake a self-assessment of Research Integrity as detailed above), reporting to Research Committee. A work-plan for areas identified for further development has been created. The University accounts for its efforts in an open and transparent way, including via the public Annual Narrative Statement. Please see the Annual Narrative Statement for further information. University of Westminster, November 2017 (on behalf of Research Committee). Academic Registrar’s Department c/o Research Committee Secretary University of Westminster, 101 New Cavendish Street London W1W 6XH T: +44 (0)20 7911 5051 E: [email protected] westminster.ac.uk Response from University of Winchester (via email) Dear Rt Hon Norman Lamb I am writing in response to your inquiry into research integrity. With regards to the annual statement to the governing body on any formal investigation of research misconduct, I am pleased to advise that the University of Winchester has not needed to conduct any formal investigation of this type to date, hence there are no annual statements. The senior member of staff to oversee research integrity, and to be a confidential liaison, is the Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange. I am the current role holder and am named on the website at https://www.winchester.ac.uk/research/ Our research ethics policy, which is available to the public at https://www.winchester.ac.uk/about-us/leadership-and- governance/policies-and-procedures/?download=true&id=200 also identifies the Director of RKE as the person to whom allegations of research misconduct should be directed. Best wishes Kate Professor Kate Adams Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange Professor David M A Green Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Telephone: 01905 855123 e-mail: [email protected] Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA 29th November 2017 Dear Mr Lamb, Research Integrity Thank you for your letter dated 8th November 2017 concerning your enquiry into research integrity and the University’s implementation of the 2012 ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. The University will provide formal confirmation, to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), in its Annual Assurance Return due on 1st December 2017, that it has continued to comply with the Concordat. There is an explicit question on this matter in the submission document provided by HEFCE to all English universities. The University’s Governing Body undertook its annual review of the Assurance Return and the University’s work in relation to the Concordat, at its meeting held on 13th November 2017. The University publishes its annual statement concerning research integrity on its website. The 2015/16 report is available at: https://www.worcester.ac.uk/documents/Annual_Report_of_ERGC_15_16.pdf. The 2016/17 report will be published in late December 2017, when it has been fully scrutinised by all relevant University committees. In addition to the annual statement, the University has a dedicated web resource providing information on the work undertaken by University in relation to research integrity, details of key senior staff contacts, and guidance about how concerns can be raised. This can be found at: https://www.worcester.ac.uk/discover/research-integrity-and-ethics.html. I trust this addresses all the points you raised in your letter. Should require further information, please contact my office. Yours sincerely, Professor David Green Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Chancellor: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO University of Worcester Henwick Grove Worcester WR2 6AJ Main Switchboard 01905 855000 Fax: 01905 855132 www.worcester.ac.uk The University of Worcester is an exempt charity. Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA 29 November 2017 [email protected]. Dear Mr Lamb, Research Integrity Thank you very much for your letter dated 8th November regarding the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into research integrity and the implementation of the 2012 ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’. I can confirm that the University of York complies with the Concordat’s recommendations, and in particular with the three recommendations identified in your letter, as follows: • The University presents a short annual statement on research integrity, including a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken, to its governing body, the University Council. Statements, including the most recent report, are publicly available on the University’s website, here: https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/research/governance/research-integrity-and- ethics/. • Research integrity at York is overseen by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, who is formally the first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity at the University. Contact details can be found on the above webpage. • The University’s Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure sets out procedures for submission of an allegation of research misconduct, and states the University’s commitment to confidentiality. Those wishing to raise allegations internally are advised to contact the appropriate Head of Department. Concerns relating to research misconduct raised by parties external to the University should be referred to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research. A copy of the Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure and contact details for the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research are available via the above webpage. If there any further queries, do not hesitate to contact our Research Strategy and Policy Manager, Anna Grey ([email protected]) Yours sincerely, Koen Lamberts Vice-Chancellor 30 November 2017 Response to a Freedom of Information request from Norman Lamb, received on 8 November 2017, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). Science and Technology Committee House of Commons London SWT A OAA Tel 020 7219 7126 http://www.parliament.uk/science From Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, Chair Professor Karen Stanton Vice-Chancellor York St John University Lord Mayor's Walk YORK Y031 7 EX 8 November 2017 Research integrity The Science and Technology Committee is holding an inquiry into research integrity, and one subject of interest within this is the research sector's progress in implementing the 2012 'Concordat to Support Research Integrity'. It is my understanding that all Universities UK members signed up to the Concordat, and I am writing to seek clarification from you about whether your institution complies with its recommendations. In particular, the Concordat recommends that employers of researchers should: • "Present a short annual statement to their own governing body that [...] provides a high-level statement on any formal investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken... To improve accountability, and provide assurances that measures being taken continue to support consistently high standards of research integrity, this statement should be made publicly available"; • "Identify a senior member of staff to oversee research integrity and to act as first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity"; and • "Provide a named point of contact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison for whistleblowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about the integrity of research being conducted under their auspices". The Committee recently took evidence from Professor Sir Ian Diamond on behalf of UUK, and learned that, as of 2016, only around a quarter of UUK members publish annual reports on the number of investigations they undertake in relation to research misconduct. A more up-to-date figure, and list of institutions which publish this information, would be very helpful for our inquiry. I would be grateful if you could confirm for the Committee whether your institution complies with the three recommendations of the Concordat reproduced above. The Committee may wish to collate and publish the information received in its final report, including non- responses, and treat your reply as written evidence to the inquiry. It would be most helpful if you could respond by 31 November 2017 with the URL of your most recent report, the page where details of the named research integrity contacts can be found, and your assessment of whether your institution meets other recommendations of the Concordat. Responses may be sent to the Committee by email to [email protected]. If your institution does not currently publish an annual statement on research integrity or details of named contacts I would be interested to receive a response setting out the rationale for this approach, as this will be helpful in determining what the Committee should recommend in this area. More broadly, if you would like to make a written submission to the inquiry on any other points in relation to research integrity then you would be very welcome to do so. Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Chair Page 1 of 2 Question 1 It would be most helpful if you could respond by 31 November 2017 with the URL of your most recent report, the page where details of the named research integrity contacts can be found, and your assessment of whether your institution meets other recommendations of the Concordat. Response 1 The University has not had cause to conduct any investigations into academic misconduct and has not consequently published related reports. Information on how the University meets the expectations of the Concordat, including relevant contact points, can be found through the following webpage: https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/research/research-ethics-- integrity/ If you are dissatisfied with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint, or request a review of our decision, you should write to the Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Karen Stanton at York St John University, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York YO31 7EX. If, following our internal review, you are not satisfied with the outcome, you may write to the Information Commissioner at the following address: Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Tel: 0303 123 1113 Wilmslow Web: www.ico.org.uk Cheshire SK9 5AF Fax: 01625 524 510 Page 2 of 2