Research Misconduct and Whistle-Blowing
Policy and Procedure
1. This
policy is provided to be used by students and employees of the university to
raise concerns relating to research misconduct and to protect those that
‘whistle-blow’ (defined in the PIDA 1998 as ‘giving
information …about illegal or underhand practices’). It is also
provided to ensure that the basis for allegations has not arisen through
misunderstanding and is not being carried out for trivial or malicious reasons.
2. Loughborough’s
‘Code of Conduct’ (Dec 96) provides guidance on expected conduct of
staff regarding financial and non financial matters. The ‘Anti-Fraud, Corruption and Whistle-Blowing
Policy’ (updated Jul 05) addresses issues of wrongdoing against students
and staff and allegations of misconduct including financial misconduct. This document relates specifically to
research misconduct and should be read in conjunction with both of these
documents.
3. The
University is committed to the highest standards of conduct and employees of
the institution are expected to behave in an honest and responsible way at all
times. University activities will be carried out in an open and transparent manner.
However, individuals should be aware of the need to keep certain matters
confidential and to respect the proper channels of communication in connection
with the University’s commercial/academic activities. Nonetheless, notwithstanding
this, individuals have a right and a duty to raise matters of concern regarding
serious research misconduct or malpractice which they believe to be true and in
the public interest to disclose. An allegation made in these circumstances
should be without fear of reprisal.
4. The
Public Interest and Disclosure Act 1998 gives legal protection to employees
against being dismissed or penalised as a result of a disclosure. It is
realised that the position of a whistle-blower is a difficult one and every
effort will be made to protect them from harassment and victimisation.
5. Research
misconduct includes:
·
Deliberate,
dangerous or negligent variation from practice which might result in unreasonable
risk to humans, animals or the environment.
·
Fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, corruption or deception in preparing, carrying out
or reporting the outcome of research including omission of data which does not
fit expected results.
·
Disclosure
of research data which is false or misleading
·
Planning,
conspiring or assisting in research misconduct including the incitement of
others to be involved and concealment of misconduct.
·
Unethical
behaviour in carrying out research including treatment of research participants
or researcher.
·
Unauthorised
use, disclosure or damage to research data, apparatus, hardware/software or
other substance used in carrying out research.
6. Genuine
mistakes, authentic academic/scientific error, honest disagreement, and poor
research, unless there is an intention to deceive, does not constitute research
misconduct. Such issues should normally
be raised with the person concerned or their line-manager. Disciplinary, grievance,
harassment and equality issues should be raised through the appropriate
channels for these issues.
7. Where an
employee of the university discovers information of serious research misconduct
or malpractice within the university then the following procedure should be
followed:
a. An allegation shall be made to the
nominated person i.e. the Chief
Operating Officer (COO). If the nominee is in any way connected with the
allegation another member of the Academic Leadership Team should be
contacted http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/vc/alt/index.html
b. The COO should be alerted to the
allegation and details should normally be lodged in writing as soon as
possible. If the COO considers the
allegation not to be research misconduct then he/she will advise whether the
matter should be dealt with under a different procedure and what steps should
be taken.
c. Investigations will be dealt with
sensitively, on an impartial basis and within a reasonable time-scale although
the nature of the allegation may affect the timescale for the investigation.
d. An initial investigation will
normally be carried out by the COO, or nominee, to establish whether there is a
prima facie case to answer. The
whistle-blower may be accompanied by a colleague or union representative during
any meetings.
e. Details of the allegation, the
identity of the person making the allegation and against whom the allegation is
made will remain confidential to the whistle-blower, COO and/or nominee, where
possible within the scope of the investigation. Those requested to assist in
the investigation will be chosen on the basis of being independent from
issues/events from which the allegation has been initiated.
f.
If
the COO considers that there is no prima
facie case to be answered and no further action will be taken then this
decision will be explained to the whistle-blower.
g. Depending on the seriousness and
nature of the allegation, some matters may be referred immediately to an
external body, e.g. Police, Funding Council or Research Council. This will be carried out with the full
knowledge of the whistle-blower.
h. Where a prima
facie case is established then the person(s) to whom the allegation refers
will be provided with the evidence and will be given the opportunity to respond
before any further action is taken.
i.
If
allegations are founded then appropriate disciplinary or other appropriate
action will be initiated. The whistle-blower will be given feedback but not on
the exact nature of the disciplinary action, which will remain
confidential. A report of the outcomes
of an allegation of research misconduct will be retained by the COO for audit
purposes.
j.
The
whistle-blower will be protected against victimisation whether or not
allegations are founded. If allegations are false and found to be malicious
disciplinary action may be taken against the whistle-blower.
k. If the whistle-blower is not
satisfied with the outcome of the investigation they should raise their concerns
with the COO as soon as possible. Another member of Executive Management Group
may be appointed to re-consider the allegation one further time.
Further
Information
Public
interest Disclosure Act 1998 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980023.htm
Public
Concern at Work (PCaW) a charity which amongst other things provides information and advice on
whistle-blowing. http://www.pcaw.co.uk/index.html