Promoting Good Scientific Practice
Incorporating procedures in the event of alleged scientific misconduct
1. Introduction
In December 1998, the Director General and the Chief Executives of the Research Councils
issued a joint statement on the avoidance of scientific misconduct and the elements to ensure
sound scientific conduct. The University of Derby has a significant volume of scientific research
activity but, hitherto, it has not adopted a formal position on safeguarding good scientific
practice and it has not had procedures for addressing instances of alleged scientific misconduct.
The existence of such policy and procedures is now a requirement of the research councils.
This document has been informed by the Office of Science & Technology statement on
Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice (1998), a similar statement prepared by the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and The Guide to Good Practice in
Science & Engineering by the Engineering & Physical Science Research Council. This
document has drawn heavily from the Guide to Good Research Practice produced by the
Medical Research Council. The University of Derby wishes to acknowledge in full the debt owed
to these sources. The University also has an approved research ethics policy and procedures,
which are set out in the University’s Regulations for research degrees by thesis. The University
also complies with the health and safety legislation. Further information on health and safety
requirements can be obtained from the University web-site or the Senior Adviser on Health and
Safety in the HR Department.
2. The principles reflected in Good Scientific Practice
Good scientific practice is essentially an attitude of mind towards the planning, investigation,
recording, interpretation and dissemination of results. The researcher working within the spirit of
good scientific practice facilitates ready verification of the quality and integrity of research data,
thereby providing a clear basis for checking in the event of any allegations of bad practice or
fraud. Responsibility for good practices rests primarily with the individual researcher but also
with the leader of any project group and with the wider Faculty/School and University.
Occasionally a researcher may find her/himself in a position of conflict of interest, for example,
where the result has a bearing on financial gain. There is nothing unethical about finding oneself
in this position but if the researcher believes that this information is of significance, then s/he
should disclose the conflict of interest.
3. Planning the research
The rationale and conduct of a project should be recorded in a laboratory notebook or file with
entries signed and dated to help protect intellectual property rights. The project leader (or
project group) should undertake an ethical review and carry responsibility for risk assessment
and the applicability of health and safety regulations. Everyone in a project team should be
aware of the ethical issues and requirements that apply to the project. The University’s code of
practice on research ethics is set out in the Regulations for the higher Degree taken by
Research Thesis (September 2003 Edition). Section 10.2 in the Regulations sets out the guiding
principles of non-malfeance (doing or permitting no misconduct) and beneficience (serving the
interests of others). Section 10.4 in the Regulations sets out the general principles, which
should be followed. Sections 10.5 and 10. 6 set out the procedures for implementation. All
research that involves the recruitment of human subjects potentially gives rise to ethical issues.
Therefore, if a project leader considers that there are no ethical issues, s/he should submit a
brief summary of any such proposed research to the Faculty Research and Research Degrees
Committee. The FRRDC will then decide whether formal ethical approval is required either by
the University Research Ethics Committee or an NHS Local Research Ethics Committee and
notify the project leader of its decision.
In clinically-related studies an identified health professional should take responsibility for the
well-being of volunteers. In the case of Clinical Trials, it is good practice for the Trials to be
registered with the Department of Health Research and Development Unit and a Clinical Trial
number identified. This number can then be used in all correspondence. This ensures that the
Trial is uniquely identified as it progresses and assists with multi-centre or future studies. The
project leader should check on resource needs and plan to undertake regular reviews of
progress so that plans can be modified if necessary. It is recommended that the project team
reaches agreement in advance as to who will write the planned publications.
Certain items of equipment and substances used in scientific research require specific controls
(eg. lasers, radiation equipment, biological materials, animals, drugs and other chemicals may
have legislative requirements.) Researchers should also ensure that they are appropriately
qualified, insured,/indemnified and permitted in law to employ such equipment and substances.
The researcher may need to organise supervision in the use of such items. Any faculty policies
with regard to such items must be complied with and appropriate individuals and bodies should
be aware and consult to the activities taking place (eg radiation protection officer, Biological
protection officer, the professional body.)
4. Conducting the research
Equipment should be located in safe, suitable accommodation and serviced in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions. A member of staff should be designated as responsible for the
maintenance of the equipment and the supervision of other users. The operator should normally
calibrate on each occasion of use. Standard operating procedures should be documented and
applied to ensure the production of consistent and accurate data. The members of the project
team must comply with the regulations on Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)
in line with planned action following the risk assessment at the planning stage. Decontamination
and waste disposal should take place in accordance with the regulated procedures.
5. Recording data
Raw (and secondary) data should be kept safely in a way that facilitates retrospective audit. All
raw data should be in bound notebooks with numbered pages or an electronic notebook.
Printouts, questionnaires and chart recordings should be in a separate indexed ring binder with
cross-references to the notebooks. In the case of health studies consent forms should be kept
with the raw data.
If there are ethical issues, which have been the subject of approval by the University Research
Ethics Committee or the Local NHS Research Ethics Committee, the Project Leader should
keep a record of the correspondence with the records of the project. Any ethical reports should
be in place before the research begins. Special attention should be paid to recording accurately
the use of potentially hazardous substances. In the case of research training, it is recommended
that the director of studies checks and signs off the notebooks and ring binders of raw data at
intervals. Computer data should be backed up electronically with hard copies of important data.
Copies of software should be kept with the raw data.
If the results inform national policy making, they should be archived. Special care is needed to
protect confidentiality of personal data. The Medical Research Council recommends that
primary data are kept at the University for a minimum of 10 years and records relating to health
studies should be retained 20 years. If researchers leave the University they must get
permission of the project director to take copies of the data. They must agree that future use is
consistent with the terms of consent.
6. Reporting the results
The dissemination of the outcomes of research is a responsibility of paramount importance. The
researcher or project team should proceed to publication as soon as any matters relating to
confidentiality and ownership have been resolved. A written agreement should be negotiated
with any external sponsors. The results should appear in a reputable publication normally
requiring peer review. It is unethical to exaggerate results, or to not report results for the
purposes of gaining unfair advantage or protecting a scientific position.
In the case of a research team the project director authorises the publication of results giving
due consideration to the integrity of results, adequacy of internal peer review and the protection
of IPR. The published report should contain information about the ethical acceptability of the
work or its legality as well as the scientific method. Any prior release of information on the
internet may compromise IPR so it is recommended to give careful consideration as to whether
this is desirable.
Careful consideration should be given to the matter of formal authorship. The authorship should
include all individuals who have made a major contribution to the work and who are familiar with
the entire paper. The test for authorship is that the named individual has participated sufficiently
to take public responsibility for the content. All contributors to the work should be acknowledged
formally including any financial sponsors.
The fragmentation of investigations into small multi-author papers in order to increase the
number and volume of publications is regarded as undesirable practice. Similarly, the
restructuring and editing of material for the publication of essentially the same information in
different journal (sometimes referred to as shingling) is also poor practice. If an error is found
that degrades the worth of published results, the principal author should discuss this with the coauthors and prepare a correction for publication as soon as possible. (See also the University’s
Regulations and guidance on Intellectual Property Rights.)
Procedures in the event of alleged scientific misconduct
The procedures are designed to apply to current staff and students of the University of Derby.
They also apply to consultants who are contracted by the University to work on investigations on
behalf of the University. The procedures are only applicable in regard of misconduct, which is
alleged to have occurred during the time that they have been employed (as staff) or registered
(as students) by the University. The procedures do not apply to persons who are employed by
other organisations, even if those individuals were engaged in collaborative research with staff
of the University. The University does not have powers to investigate former employees or
students who are now employed elsewhere. The University procedures will be applied in
response to complaints received in writing from either internal or external persons or
organisations.
1. Stage One: Preliminary action
An allegation may be received by the Vice-Chancellor, a member of the Corporate Management
Team or the Research Office. It is passed to the relevant Dean of the Faculty who decides,
after consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Scholarship) and the
Head of Research, whether the allegation falls within the scope of the procedure and whether
an assessment is warranted. The Dean informs the individual against whom the allegation is
made, the substance of the allegation and invites them to respond. If s/he is not satisfied with
the response or believes that the reputations on any of the parties could be at risk if the matter
is not taken to the formal investigation stage, s/he will proceed to Stage Two. The Formal
Investigation Panel (Stage Two) serves as the formal Disciplinary Hearing as required by the
University’s disciplinary regulations.
If the Dean decides that a formal investigation is warranted s/he will arrange for all relevant
research records and materials to be immediately sequestered and lodged securely in the
Research Office. If s/he decides that a formal investigation is not warranted, s/he records the
justification for the decision and informs the complainant, the researcher(s), the Pro ViceChancellor (LTS) and the Head of Research. If the allegation relates to a perceived risk to
health or safety, then the Dean must take action to be sure that any such risk is eliminated.
2. Stage Two: The Formal Investigation: a Disciplinary Hearing
The purpose of the formal investigation is to make a thorough evaluation of all the relevant facts
to determine whether there has been misconduct. If it is decided that misconduct has been
committed, then it is necessary to decide who was responsible and the seriousness of the
incident.
The Dean appoints a Misconduct Investigation Panel comprising three appropriately qualified
persons. The first member should hold a senior research position within the Faculty and should
normally be designated Chair. A second member should have research experience relevant to
the case. The third member of the Panel should be external to the school/ department or the
University. None of the members of the Investigation Panel should have any conflict of interest
with the case. They must have the expertise necessary to interview the witnesses. The Dean
notifies the researcher(s) of the composition of the Misconduct Investigation Panel and gives
opportunity for a written objection. The Dean must record the reasons for accepting or rejecting
any objection raised.
The investigation should normally include examination of all documentation including relevant
research data materials, proposals, publications, correspondence, memoranda and notes of
telephone calls. The researcher(s) is entitled to be present during the receipt of all evidence
from the complainant and the witnesses. S/he should be in receipt of all written evidence being
used as evidence by the Misconduct Investigation Panel and s/he may also ask questions of
clarification with regard to this evidence through the Chair. The secretariat should keep a
detailed record of the hearing including a verbatim documentation of the spoken evidence. The
final report should be completed within ten weeks of the written notification to the researcher(s)
that the matter is to considered by a Misconduct Investigation Panel.
The final report should state how the investigation was conducted, how the information was
obtained, set out the findings, explain the basis for the findings and include an accurate agreed
summary of the views of the researcher(s) alleged to have engaged in misconduct. The
researcher(s) will be given an opportunity to comment on the report. . The researcher(s) will be
given 3 weeks to prepare a written response statement following receipt of the report. This
response should be attached as an addendum to the report. If the researcher(s) decides to
challenges any part of the report, s/he may request a meeting with the Dean and the Chair of
the Misconduct Investigation Panel. The researcher should be quite clear about any
statements, which s/he believes are unsubstantiated.
The final decision rests with the Dean of Faculty who may consult the Pro Vice-Chancellor
(LTS) and Head of Research. If the Misconduct Investigation Panel finds that misconduct was
committed and the researcher(s) were responsible, it will be the responsibility of the Dean to
decide on the appropriate action.
This should reflect the seriousness of the
infringement/offence as advised by the Misconduct Investigation Panel.
3.
Notification of the final decision
The Dean will write to the researcher(s), complainant, the Chair of the Misconduct Investigation
Panel, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (LTS) and Head of Research to inform them of the final decision.
S/he will also recommend any amendment to the aspects of the Promoting Good Research
Practice document or this Procedures in the event of alleged Misconduct in Research which
may be appropriate.
4.
Sanctions
If the allegations of misconduct in research have been substantiated then the Dean shall
determine the appropriate sanctions. These may be one or more of the following:





Removal from a particular project (staff or student)
A final written warning (staff or student)
Special monitoring of work (staff or student)
Removal of eligibility for pay progression for one year/or loss of increment (staff)
Loss of funding/access to future funding (staff)
If the Dean decides that the nature of the misconduct is very serious indeed and has brought
the school or institution into disrepute, s/he may recommend to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (LTS)
that the person concerned should have their employment/registration terminated. If the
recommendation is agreed, this is conveyed the Vice-Chancellor who may dismiss the person
without further notice.
In the event of a registered health or social care professional, or scientist regulated by the code
of conduct of a professional body, the Dean should notify the appropriate registering/regulatory
body of the outcome of any case where the researcher(s) have been found guilty of misconduct.
This may trigger a separate disciplinary procedure of the regulatory body with regard to the
fitness for practice of the researcher(s) concerned. This is very important. Failure to report
might be deemed as placing the public at risk through continued bad practice. If the regulatory
body decides to strike off the researcher(s) then the University may be obliged to dismiss or redeploy the researcher(s). In the case of a student, the regulatory body may not be willing to
register the student or may decide to terminate registration.
5.
Appeal
If the researcher(s) wish to appeal against the decision of the Dean, then s/he should submit the
appeal within two weeks of the final written notification by the Dean. The Appeal procedure,
operates in accordance with normal procedures for the consideration of Appeals against the
findings of disciplinary hearings (staff or students as appropriate) at the University. The
outcome of the Appeal process is final. The Vice-Chancellor will notify the researcher(s) of the
final decision.
If at any time the researcher(s) decides to accept the substance of the allegations, it will be for
the Dean of the Faculty, in consultation with the Pro Vice Chancellor (LTS) and the Head of
Research, to identify an appropriate sanction. This sanction should be mutually satisfactory to
the complainant and the researcher(s) concerned. S/he will also need to take into consideration
any damage which has been caused to the Faculty/University’s reputation and the extent to
which the admission and agreement has mitigated such damage. If the researcher(s) is found
not guilty of the allegations, the Faculty and University will take all reasonable steps to restore
the reputation of the researcher(s) concerned.
Acknowledgements: Dr Peter Rivers and Dr Warren Turner (SEHS) are acknowledged for their very
helpful detailed comments on the original proposals (2004). There were no allegations of misconduct in
research at the University between 2004 and 2009. This revised edition (March 2009) has been informed
by and is consistent with the Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research published by the
UK Research Integrity Office, August 2008.
PHB/ Original procedures approved by the University of Derby Academic Board, 31 st March 2004
Nomenclature updated October 2006.
Revised edition agreed by the University Research and Research Degrees Committee: 25 th March 2009
Approved by Academic Board: Date 8th July 2009