Jump to accessibility statement Skip to content

University of Sunderland Annual Statement on Research Integrity 2016/17

Approved by Research and Innovation Group of the Academic Board.

Background

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

Under the Concordat, the University has five commitments:

1. To maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.

2. To ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.

3. To support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.

4. To use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.

5. To work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.

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

Annual statement

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

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

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

Guiding principles:

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

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

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

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

Measures undertaken to strengthen compliance in 2016/17

Implementation of new ethical review system

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

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

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

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

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

Revised arrangements Research Ethics Group (formally Research Ethics Committee)

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

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

Policy development

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

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

Promotion of the Code of Practice

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

Instances, allegations and investigations of research misconduct

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

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