Research misconduct

The concordat to support research integrity defines misconduct as:

'behaviour or actions that fall short of the standards of ethics, research and scholarship required to ensure that the integrity of research is upheld.' 

This includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in performing or reviewing research, and in reporting research outputs.

We use the concordat’s definition of research misconduct, and we expect the organisations we fund to do the same. Read the concordat to support research integrity on the Universities UK website.

Research misconduct can include:

• omitting relevant data
• manipulating images
• misusing data by deliberately attempting to re-identify people from research data.

It does not include:

• honest differences in the design, execution or interpretation in evaluating research methods or results
• research of poor quality, unless this encompasses the intention to deceive.
   

We expect all participants involved in Wellcome funding to follow our guidelines on good research practice and other Wellcome grant funding policies, such as bullying and harassment.

Participants include:

• grantholders
• co-investigators
• sponsors and supervisors
• research staff
• students
• fieldworkers
• collaborators
• consultants
• sub-awardees
• Wellcome advisory committee members.

We expect research organisations in the UK to follow the Universities UK concordat to support research integrity.

Organisations outside the UK should follow appropriate guidelines of a similar standard, such as the Singapore statement on research integrity.

When an organisation submits a grant application to us, they must confirm that the lead applicant (and sponsor and supervisor if relevant), has not had an allegation of research misconduct upheld against them for which there is either a current formal disciplinary warning or an active sanction.

If they have, we may reject the application. In such circumstances we encourage potential applicants to contact Wellcome's Director of Grants, in confidence, to discuss their situation before they apply.

We recommend that the organisation’s application submission sign-off process includes someone who would be aware of any such warning or sanction. If the applicant has been at the organisation for less than 12 months, we expect the organisation to check with the previous employer.

It is the organisation’s responsibility to:

1. Have a policy in place that clearly sets out

• the standards of behaviour it expects from staff
• their procedure for handling allegations, including a first point of contact.

The policy should be available to all staff and ideally published on the organisation’s intranet.

2. Make sure there is an equivalent policy in place at any sub-awardee organisation. If this is a problem, contact us for advice.

3. Investigate allegations of research misconduct in an impartial, fair and timely manner. It must:

• protect the rights of all employees involved
• take appropriate action.

The UK Research Integrity Office’s recommend procedure for investigation provides a detailed model that may be helpful to organisations in and outside the UK.

4. Tell Wellcome’s Director of Grants, when a formal investigation has been opened into an allegation of research misconduct. This should include information on the category of research misconduct and the investigation process. 

If there is a full investigation, the organisation must tell Wellcome the name of the respondent, in confidence.

This applies to any employee at the organisation who is associated with:

• a grant application under consideration (either as a lead applicant, sponsor or supervisor)
• a Wellcome grant (see our list of participants above)
• a Wellcome advisory committee.

5. Keep Wellcome informed during the investigation process. Investigations should conclude within one year of receiving the allegation.

6. Contact Wellcome’s Director of Grants again when the investigation has been completed and any final appeal has been heard, and provide us with the final investigation report. This should confirm:

• if the allegation was upheld
• the findings of the investigation
• if any sanctions are being imposed.

Wherever possible, organisations should see an investigation through to its conclusion. This includes:

• applying any disciplinary procedures
• documenting the findings.

If the host organisation or Wellcome determines that the allegation of research misconduct is substantiated, we will consider appropriate sanctions, including:

• letter of reprimand
• removal from the grant in question or withdrawal of current funding
• restriction from future grant applications
• requiring the withdrawal or correction of pending or published abstracts, papers or monographs produced by the research in question
• requiring the monitoring of future work
• repayment of any grant affected plus interest.

Where allegations of research misconduct are upheld, we expect organisations to implement appropriate disciplinary procedures.

If a host organisation fails to conduct a timely investigation, or to keep Wellcome appropriately informed of its actions, we may choose to apply sanctions against the organisation. This may include not accepting new grant applications or, in extreme cases, suspending funding to the organisation.

There may be instances where allegations of research misconduct are made directly to a member of our staff rather than to an individual within the host organisation.

In such instances, having discussed the circumstances with the informant, we will inform an appropriate individual at the host organisation and the organisation will then be responsible for taking suitable action in line with its formal written procedures for handling allegations.

Wellcome will not form an opinion on any allegation until an investigation has been completed and will only provide information to our staff or external advisors as necessary.

If an informant wishes to remain anonymous, this will be respected unless:

• there are overriding legal requirements that we reveal the identity of the informant
• it is impossible to maintain anonymity to conduct an investigation
• the informant subsequently agrees to relinquish anonymity.

The informant will be notified of any proposed change to their anonymity.

As stated above, it is the host organisation's responsibility to investigate allegations of research misconduct and this is our preferred course of action.

In exceptional cases, we may undertake our own investigation into alleged cases of research misconduct that concern Wellcome-funded researchers (for example, where our reputation is at risk or we are dissatisfied with the investigation undertaken by the host organisation).

Any investigations will only be undertaken following consultation with the appropriate representative(s) of the host organisation.

This policy was last updated in October 2017. The first version of this statement was published in January 2002.