Research integrity and governance

Academic misconduct is defined as any breach of the University’s code on good research practice (PDF), or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the research communities for proposing, conducting and/or reporting research.

It specifically encompasses, but is not restricted to:

• Plagiarism – misrepresentation of the work, ideas and or concepts of others as one’s own without permission or acknowledgement
• Fabrication and/or misappropriation of data, including the creation of false data or other aspects of research, including documentation and participant consent
• Falsification including the inappropriate manipulation and/or selection of data, imagery and/or consents
• Misrepresentation of interests and/or data and/or involvement regarding, for example, qualifications and/or authorship
• Intentional mismanagement or inadequate preservation of data and/or primary materials
• Cheating or otherwise disclosing information with the intent of gaining for oneself or for another an unfair advantage
• Intentional damage to, or removal of, the research-related property of another
• Intentional non-compliance with legal, ethical and professional obligations, for example legal, ethical and other requirements for research involving human research participants, animal subjects, their tissue or data. This includes breaches in duty of care and data protection. It also covers improper peer review of research proposals, results or manuscripts for publication as well as failure to adhere to the terms and conditions governing the award of external funding for research or to the University’s policies and procedures relating to research. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct: Failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistleblowers, or failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct accepted as a condition of funding.

Misconduct in research would not normally include professional/academic differences in interpretation or judgment of data.

For the avoidance of doubt, misconduct in research includes acts of omission as well as acts of commission.

In addition, the standards by which allegations of misconduct in research should be judged should be those prevailing at the date that the behaviour under investigation took place.

Allegations of academic misconduct concerning the actions of a member of staff of the University must be reported to an associate dean for research and innovation. Such allegations can be reported to any of the associate dean's, not necessarily of a particular faculty.

Allegations of misconduct regarding the actions of a postgraduate student must be reported to the Director of the Doctoral College.

In making an allegation of academic misconduct, please complete a written report detailing the nature of the suspected misconduct. The report should be made using the standard pro-forma (doc).

It is expected that, in normal circumstances, the individual reporting the suspected academic misconduct would be willing to be named and provide evidence. However, where an individual has reservations about reporting suspected academic misconduct directly, they may opt to do so through their head of department or line manager. 

If the individual wishing to make the allegation is a postgraduate research student, then they may opt to report their suspicion through their supervisor, postgraduate research director or the Students’ Union.

The University of Surrey is a subscriber to the United Kingdom’s Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). UKRIO is an independent charity, offering support to the public, researchers and organisations to further good practice in academic, scientific and medical research. Visit the UKRIO website for more information.

If you would like to discuss or seek advice on research misconduct, please email integrity@surrey.ac.uk.

The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation is responsible for leading the University’s research strategy and performance, providing leadership to the Universities Research Excellence Framework (REF) submission, and ambition to maximise income through grant awards and outcomes through impact and knowledge transfer activities.

To support the Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research and Innovation, each faculty has an appointed Associate Dean for Research (ADR), aligning the University and faculty approaches.

To drive research strategy forward, the University is facilitated by the University Research and Innovation Committee (URI) chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation.

The Committee has oversight of research strategies and policies and reviews the University’s performance against its research aims and objectives. It considers external and internal factors that will enhance or limit the University’s ability to deliver high quality research.

The Committee is supported by two sub-committees:

Research Integrity and Governance Committee

To ensure that research activity at the University of Surrey is carried out to the highest standards of rigour and integrity; and to provide strategic direction on the development, implementation and evaluation of the concordat to support research integrity.

Doctoral College Board

The Doctoral College Board is responsible for formulating policy and strategy that will support the Doctoral College in meeting its objectives. The Doctoral College Board will oversee key aspects of the postgraduate researcher and early career researcher experience with a particular focus on building a cohesive community and research environment, providing first class training, facilitating excellent supervision, and enhancing employability skills.