Quality Handbook Section 17D - Procedure for investigating alleged research misconduct requirements

Stage 1: Screening

3.6 Having written to the Respondent, the Executive Dean of School will nominate a member of staff to be Named Person (the Named Person must be a senior academic with experience of supervising doctoral candidates and must not have any direct ties with the Respondent or Complainant) who will consider the evidence that has been made available to them (by the Executive Dean of School), including the allegation(s) and any supporting evidence provided by the Complainant and may, at their own discretion, consult additional experts in the relevant discipline subject or request any further evidence that they deem necessary (files, notebooks, other records). At this stage, the Named Person may wish to speak to the Complainant and/or the Respondent to assist in their understanding of the allegation.

3.7 NTU Doctoral will provide suitable administrative and other support to assist the Named Person.

3.8 The Named Person shall determine whether there is sufficient evidence of research misconduct to warrant a Formal Investigation into the allegation(s).

3.9 The Named Person will complete their review within 20 working days from the date of the letter to the Respondent informing them of the allegation(s) against them.  Where the Named Person determines that a delay to the timescale is required the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed of this delay in writing and will be provided with an estimated revised date of completion.

3.10 At the conclusion of the review, the Named Person will determine whether the allegation of misconduct in research:

1. is unfounded because it is mistaken or is otherwise without substance and will be dismissed; or
2. is unfounded because it is frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious and will be dismissed (where this is the case, the Named Person will refer the matter to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International), who will consider any further steps required); or
3. warrants direct referral to another relevant University process or procedure or to an external organisation (this may be relevant where there are concerns relating to Fitness to Practice); or
4. has some substance but due to the lack of intent to deceive, will be addressed through education and training or another non-disciplinary approach rather than through the next stage of this Procedure; or
5. is sufficiently serious and has sufficient substance to warrant a Formal Investigation of the allegation(s).

3.11 The Named Person will set out their findings in a report to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International), Executive Dean of School, Respondent and Complainant. The Respondent and Complainant may provide comment on the factual accuracy of the report only where the report includes errors of fact. Such comments must be addressed to the Named Person and received within 10 working days of the date of the Report.  The Named Person will judge the validity of such comments before making any required amendments to the report.

3.12 Where the Named Person concludes that an allegation has sufficient substance to warrant a Formal Investigation the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) will implement a Formal Investigation in accordance with Stage Two of this Procedure.

Stage 2: Formal Investigation

3.13 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) shall appoint a University Research Misconduct Group (URMG). The purpose of the URMG is to review all the evidence collected during the Named Person’s investigation following the original allegation(s) and investigate further as required.

3.14 The URMG shall consist of at least three impartial members of the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) and will normally include:

1. a senior member of University staff appointed by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) (who shall act as Chair);
2. a senior member of University staff who is not from the School to which the Respondent or Complainant to an allegation belong or in which the misconduct in research is alleged to have occurred;
3. a further academic member of staff appointed from the URDC by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International). Where appropriate, this member will be a specialist in the academic discipline in which the misconduct in research is alleged to have taken place.

3.15 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) may choose to appoint a member from outside the University where it is deemed appropriate. Each member of the URMG will confirm that their involvement in the URMG presents no conflict of interest. Where there is a conflict of interest, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) will remove that member and appoint a new member.

3.16 The URMG will be appointed within 20 working days of the Named Person issuing its final report to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International).

3.17 The Chair of the URMG, after 3 working days of their appointment, shall inform the Respondent and the Complainant that a Formal Investigation in the allegation(s) is to take place.

3.18 The Chair of the URMG will be responsible for the conduct of the URMG under this procedure. The URMG will determine its own procedure in the conduct of the investigation. In undertaking the Formal Investigation, the URMG is not required to work to a prescribed timetable but should conduct the Formal Investigation as quickly as possible without compromising the principles set out in this procedure.  The Chair will report the progress made by the URMG to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) every month who will, in turn, provide appropriate information on the progress of the Formal Investigation to the Complainant and the Respondent.

3.19 The URMG must interview the Respondent and the Complainant as part of its investigation, both of whom shall have the right to be accompanied to such interviews by another person if they so wish. The Respondent and the Complainant will also be allowed to provide written representations to the URMG. Such representations must be received by the URMG within 10 working days after attendance at that interview.

3.20 If the Respondent and/or the Complainant fails, without good reason, to attend an investigatory interview requested by the URMG, the URMG shall be entitled to continue with and conclude the investigation.

3.21 The URMG shall be free to seek confidential advice from persons with relevant expertise both within the University and outside it.

3.22 Whilst the URMG will strive to avoid delay, the time required to complete the Formal Investigation will be influenced by several factors, including the nature of the allegation of misconduct in research and the volume and nature of evidence to be gathered and reviewed.

3.23 NTU Doctoral will provide suitable administrative and other support to assist the URMG.

3.24 At the conclusion of the Formal Investigation, the URMG will conclude, giving the reasons for its decision and recording any differing views, whether the allegation of misconduct in research is:

1. upheld in full; or
2. upheld in part; or
3. not upheld and will be dismissed.

3.25 When concluding whether an allegation is upheld in full or in part or is not upheld, the standard of proof used is that of “on the balance of probabilities.”

3.26 Reasons for concluding that the allegation(s) is not upheld can include, but are not limited to:

1. the allegation(s) are mistaken, frivolous, vexatious or malicious;
2. lack of intent to deceive or the allegation(s) is relatively minor nature and will therefore be addressed through education and training or other non-disciplinary approach.

3.27 The URMG shall provide a draft Formal Investigation Report of its findings to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International), who will forward the Report to the Respondent and the Complainant for comment on the factual accuracy of the report. Where the Report contains any error or omission of fact or the comments provided by the Complainant or the Respondent, which are accepted by the URMG as having a material bearing on the facts, the Report will be modified by the Chair of the URMG. The Chair will judge the validity of any comments received and seek the agreement of the URMG before making amendments to the Report.

3.28 The URMG will then produce the final Report, which:

1. summarises the conduct of the investigation;
2. states whether the allegation(s) of misconduct in research have been upheld in whole or in part, giving the reasons for its decision and recording any differing views as well as its recommendations;
3. makes recommendations in relation to any other misconduct identified during the investigation;
   d. addresses any procedural matters that the investigation has brought to light within the University.

3.29 Where an allegation of research misconduct is deemed to be upheld in relation to a doctoral candidate undertaking Phase 1 of the Professional Doctorate Course, Appendix 1 sets out the penalty framework.

3.30 The URMG may also conclude and make recommendations that the allegation(s) should be referred to another relevant University process; note whether any action will be required to correct the record of research; note whether any external organisations should be informed of the findings of the Formal Investigation (and if so which organisations should be informed); and note whether any other matters should be investigated.

3.31 The Chair of the URMG will forward the final Report, together with any documentation used in the Formal Investigation, to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) and the Executive Dean of the School to consider the URMG’s conclusions/recommendations and decide what action should be taken. If it is deemed appropriate by the URMG, the Director of Human Resources will be made aware of the outcome. At this stage the URMG will be disbanded.

4.1 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) and Executive Dean of School (with the Director of HR where appropriate) shall provide their recommendations on the action to be taken to the URDC who shall review the Report and its findings and recommendations and agree with the action or make a further decision on the implementation of the recommendations. The outcome shall be reported back to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) and the Chair of the URMG. The URDC may, at any time, consult with appropriate colleagues or liaise with relevant Committees before making a decision on the course of action to be taken against the Respondent (if appropriate).

4.2 Within 10 working days of the URDC meeting, the Chair of the URDC shall notify the Respondent in writing of the URDC’s decision on the Recommendations from the Report, together with a copy of the final Report and details of the appeal process. The notification will be sent by recorded delivery / secure email.

4.3 Respondents are advised that in cases where evidence of an allegation(s) of misconduct in research (as defined in paragraph 1.5 above) is upheld in full or in part, the University may, in some cases, be required to report the matter to relevant professional bodies. If this is the case, the Respondent will be advised of this in the notification at 4.2 above.

4.4 Where the allegation(s) has not been upheld, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) shall take such steps as may be necessary to preserve the good reputation of the Respondent. Where a case has received any publicity, the Respondent shall be offered the possibility of having an official statement released by the University to the press or other relevant parties (or both). Where the URMG find that the Complainant’s allegation(s) was malicious or reckless and the Complainant is a member of staff, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) may recommend action is initiated under the University’s disciplinary process. Where the URMG find that the Complainant’s allegation(s) was malicious or reckless and the Complainant is a doctoral candidate at the University, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) may recommend action is initiated under the PGR Student Code of Behaviour. In so referring the matter, the Chair of the URMG shall provide information as necessary to facilitate that disciplinary process.

5.1 NTU Doctoral shall assume responsibility for keeping accurate records of the activities, deliberations and reporting of the process within an archive of the case upon completion of the investigation. This documentation will be kept for a period in line with the University’s retention schedule.

6.1 The Respondent has the right to appeal the findings of the URMG within 10 working days from the date of the letter received from the Chair of the URDC. Any appeal submitted by the Respondent must be made on the following grounds only:

1. where the Respondent has material information which was not previously available for consideration by the URMG;
2. where the Respondent believes that a material administrative or procedural error has occurred in the operation of this Procedure; or
3. where the Respondent believes that the recommended penalty is excessive and disproportionate.

6.2 The Respondent must submit an appeal in writing to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) within the timescale set out at 6.1 above stating the grounds upon which the appeal is being made and detailing the reasons for the appeal.

6.3 If the appeal is being made on the ground that the Respondent has material information which was not previously available for consideration by the URMG, the Respondent must submit that material or evidence to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) as part of the written appeal.

6.4 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) shall consider whether the appeal has been made on one or more of the permitted grounds and if so, whether the evidence or arguments put forward by the Respondent in support of their request for an appeal have sufficient merit to justify invoking the formal appeal procedure.

6.5 Where the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) decides that the appeal is not within any of the permitted grounds for an appeal or that the evidence or arguments put forward by the Respondent are not sufficient to justify invoking the formal appeal procedure, the Respondent shall be informed in writing that the appeal has been rejected on that basis and that the original Report and Recommendations remain unchanged. Such a decision by Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) is final and there is no further right of appeal within the University’s Procedures.

6.6 Where the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) decides that an appeal does satisfy one or more of the permitted grounds and justifies invoking the appeal procedure, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) shall refer the matter to a University Research Misconduct Appeal Body (the Appeal Body) for consideration.

6.7 The Appeal Body shall consist of at least three members who have had no involvement in any of the earlier stages, comprising:

1. A senior member of University staff appointed by Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) (who shall act as Chair);
2. A senior member of University staff who is not from the School in which the Respondent or Complainant to an allegation study or in which the misconduct in research is alleged to have occurred; and
3. A further academic member of staff appointed from the URDC by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International). Where appropriate, this member will be a specialist in the academic discipline in which the misconduct in research is alleged to have taken place.

6.8 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) may also choose to appoint an additional member from outside the University where it is deemed appropriate.  Each member of the Appeal Body will provide confirmation that their involvement in the Appeal Body presents no conflict of interest. Where a member informs the Appeal Body that they have a conflict of interest, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) will replace that member and appoint a new member.

6.9 NTU Doctoral will provide suitable administrative and other support to assist the Appeal Body.

6.10 The Respondent shall be given at least 10 working days’ written notice of the appeal hearing and shall be provided with a further copy of the Report and recommendations resulting from that Report. The Respondent is entitled to attend the appeal hearing and shall have the right to be accompanied by another person if they so wish.

6.11 If the Respondent is unable to attend the appeal hearing due to illness or other extenuating circumstances, they must inform the Chair as soon as possible.

6.12 The Chair of the Appeal Body will be responsible for the conduct of the appeal hearing under this Procedure. The Appeal Body will determine its own procedure in the conduct of the investigation. However, it must be noted that the Appeal Body is not required to undertake a re-run of the Formal Investigation but will undertake a review of the Report and resulting recommendation(s). The Chair shall have discretion to allow the introduction of new evidence during the appeal hearing.

6.13 The Appeal Body will produce an Appeal Report which shall set out their findings and any subsequent recommendations resulting from those findings. The Appeal Report shall be provided to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) and the Chair of the URDC. The URDC shall consider the Appeal Report at either its next meeting or an extraordinary meeting (where appropriate) and inform the Respondent of their decision in writing (Completion of Procedures Letter) within 10 working days of the date of that meeting.

6.14 The decision by the URDC (via the Appeal Body) is final and there is no further right of appeal within the University’s Procedures. The Completion of Procedures Letter issued at 6.13 above shall inform the Respondent that the University’s procedures have been concluded and will be in a form prescribed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).