Sub-Committee on Research Integrity

• Terms of reference: remit and purpose

  The University of St Andrews fully supports the principles laid out in the UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity (Universities UK, updated 2019).

  The University’s approach is to focus on continuous improvement activities aimed at building, maintaining and enhancing a culture of research integrity, taking an academic-led approach to ensure that we strategically focus on activities with a high likelihood of impact.

  This entity is the vehicle for that academic-led approach: a standing group of academic representatives to steer the work of building, maintaining and enhancing a culture of research integrity, by working with key professional services staff (of the latter, most co-opted as required) to:

  • Identify where relevant work needs to be done
  • Develop ideas for relevant work to meet those needs
  • Inform the prioritisation of resource to deliver relevant work
  • When relevant work is being undertaken, to make key decisions regarding the development of the work

  Under the following broad themes:

  • Developing policy and guidance
  • Raising awareness and providing training
  • Engaging externally
  • Monitoring and evaluation of provisions

  The entity does this via:

  • Exercising its reserved powers (as detailed below); or
  • Developing proposals for presentation to other entities

• Terms of reference: reserved powers

  • Raising awareness and providing training:
    • developing and deploying University or School or department-level training related to research integrity (it is expected that proposed training will not be mandatory. Any mandated training would need to be proposed to and approved by other entities with such powers)
    • developing and running discussion and/or awareness-raising events related to research integrity
  • Engaging externally
    • taking up opportunities to engage externally on research integrity, on behalf of the University
  • Monitoring and evaluation of provisions:
    • Developing, deploying and reviewing such provisions

  For the avoidance of doubt, the following are not reserved powers:

  • Publishing policy and guidance: whilst these would be developed and proposed by this entity, they would be approved by other entities
  • Operating of processes detailed in policies and guidance: for example, research misconduct investigations are undertaken by RIS, and do not involve this entity whatsoever

• Action plan

  Action plan for Research, Impact and Innovation Committee (RIIC) sub-committee on Research Integrity

  Last updated: February 2026

  The RIIC sub-committee on Research Integrity must create and maintain an Action Plan that clearly relates to its remit, an updated version of which must be presented to each meeting of RIIC by both the Chair and Academic Lead.

  Overall provisions

  1. Mapping alignment of current provisions again the updated 2025 Concordat, including language and framing

  • Priority: High
  • RAG: Red
  • Status: Not yet started
  • Owner: Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance (HRPIG), RIS
  • Delivery vehicle: One-off project within relevant team
  • Timescale: Should be aimed to be completed by April 2026
  • Dependencies: HRPIG time
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Not applicable

  2. Participating in, and taking forward the findings of, the RESTORE project funded by InFrame (Wellcome), focusing on removing obstacles to engagement with research misconduct investigation processes by exploring potential improvements to support around such processes

  • Priority: High
  • RAG: Green
  • Status: Project ongoing
  • Owner: Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance (HRPIG), RIS
  • Delivery vehicle: RESTORE project, funded by Inframe (Wellcome)
  • Timescale: Project ongoing, will conclude around May 2026
  • Dependencies: Requires a small amount of HRPIG time, but otherwise resourced. Implementing findings may incur as yet unknown resource.
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Will occur once proposals have been made, before action is taken to trial or implement them

  3. Exploring how to address the most commonly encountered research integrity issue at St Andrews: recognition of individuals' contributions to research works (for example, authorship, acknowledgement, citation, etc.)

  • Priority: High
  • RAG: Amber
  • Status: Short Life Working Group set up, has taken time to get started, but will work throughout 2026
  • Owner: Short Life Working Group on Recognising Contributions to Research
  • Delivery vehicle: Short Life Working Group on Recognising Contributions to Research
  • Timescale: Project should conclude by end of 2026
  • Dependencies: Time of HRPIG, time of others on working group
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Will occur once proposals have been made, before action is taken to trial or implement them

  ---

  Policy and guidance

  1. Developing our own University policy/guidance on the research integrity dimensions of the use of generative AI

  • Priority: High
  • RAG: Green
  • Status: Starting in late 2025
  • Owner: Sub-Committee on Research Integrity
  • Delivery vehicle: Project undertaken by Sub Committee on Research Integrity
  • Timescale: Aiming to complete in first half of 2026
  • Dependencies: Time of committee, time of HRPIG
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Will occur once proposals have been made, before action is taken to trial or implement them

  2. Finalising the review of the following policies: Principle of good research conduct; Research misconduct (and associated documents)

  • Priority: High
  • RAG: Amber
  • Status: Started in 2023, and considerable stakeholder engagement occurred up to early 2024. Paused by HRPIG since early 2024 due to lack of resource in face of competing priorities. 
  • Owner: Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance (HRPIG), RIS
  • Delivery vehicle: One off 'project' within relevant team
  • Timescale: Aiming to complete in first half of 2026
  • Dependencies: Time of HRPIG, time of sub committee, time of other senior stakeholders
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Policies are due to have EIA renewed when they are renewed, will be undertaken as part of work

  3. Developing guidance on drafting and responding to allegations of research misconduct

  • Priority: Low
  • RAG: Red
  • Status: Not yet started
  • Owner: Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance (HRPIG), RIS
  • Delivery vehicle: One off 'project' within relevant team
  • Timescale: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Dependencies: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Will occur once proposals have been made, before action is taken to trial or implement them

  4. Pull together a guide on indicators of research integrity in different areas of research and types of research activity (for example, the guidelines from publishers on ideal approaches to research, etc.)

  • Priority: Low
  • RAG: Red
  • Status: Not yet started
  • Owner: Sub-Committee on Research Integrity
  • Delivery vehicle: Project undertaken by Sub Committee on Research Integrity
  • Timescale: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Dependencies: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Not applicable, as would be simply a summary of existing guidance

  ---

  Training

  1. Finalising the mandatory* module produced by OSDS (*for new academic staff on R or E+R contracts, as a condition of probation)

  • Priority: Medium
  • RAG: Amber
  • Status: Started in 2023, and considerable stakeholder engagement occurred up to early 2024. No progress since early 2024 due to lack of HRPIG resource in face of competing priorities. 
  • Owner: Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance (HRPIG), RIS
  • Delivery vehicle: One off 'project' within relevant team
  • Timescale: Aiming to complete in first half of 2026
  • Dependencies: Time of HRPIG, time of sub committee, time of other relevant stakeholders
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Not applicable

  2. Developing training for those acting as Investigators in research misconduct investigations

  • Priority: Medium
  • RAG: Red
  • Status: Not yet started
  • Owner: Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance (HRPIG), RIS
  • Delivery vehicle: One off 'project' within relevant team
  • Timescale: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Dependencies: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Not applicable

  3. Seek the development of training around research methods (including e.g. statistics)

  • Priority: Medium
  • RAG: Red
  • Status: Not yet started
  • Owner: Sub-Committee on Research Integrity
  • Delivery vehicle: Project undertaken by Sub Committee on Research Integrity
  • Timescale: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Dependencies: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: Not applicable

  ---

  Awareness raising

  1. Developing and implementing ideas of how to best celebrate, promote and share specific examples of research integrity best practice at the University, both within and outwith the University

  • Priority: Low
  • RAG: Red
  • Status: Not yet started
  • Owner: Sub-Committee on Research Integrity
  • Delivery vehicle: Project undertaken by Sub Committee on Research Integrity
  • Timescale: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Dependencies: Not applicable, as not yet started
  • Relation to other strategies or action plans: To be completed
  • Equality impact: x

• Meeting frequency

  Quasi-fixed: six 30-minute meetings will be held in diaries each year, one every other month.

  The Chair and Academic Lead will seek clear topical and action focus for each meeting, without which the diary hold will be cancelled.

  This allows an approximately ‘ad hoc’ approach without the risk of being unable to find time in member’s calendars close to the dates of meetings.

• Core membership

  • Chair
  • Academic Lead
  • Four academic representatives (covering a range of career stages – PGR, postdoc and permanent staff):
    • Life Sciences
    • Physical Sciences
    • Social Sciences
    • Arts and Humanities
  • One technician representative
  • One School/Dept level research support representative

  Other members will be co-opted when needed. 

• Past minutes

  • 28 August 2025 - RIIC Sub Committee on Research Integrity minutes (Word)
  • 8 December 2025 - RIIC Sub Committee on Research Integrity minutes (PDF)
  • 9 February 2026 - minutes being finalised

• Role descriptions: Chair, Academic lead, Representative member

  Chair role description

  • Is a member of Professional Services staff, selected and/or approved by the Director of the Professional Services Unit that leads on the area within the Remit.
  • Responsible for ensuring that:
    • An Academic Lead is recruited, ideally someone who is a member of, or attends, RIIC
    • The following are written, with co-development and ownership by the Academic Lead:
      • Terms of Reference, including deciding on reserved powers, meeting frequency, core membership, and member recruitment process.
      • Member Role Descriptor.
      • Member Advert.
      • Pro-active horizon scanning is undertaken from within their Professional Services unit on matters relating to the remit and purpose, ensuring the input of others outwith the Unit as required.
      • The production of papers, reports and action plans is undertaken, led and/or coordinated from within their Professional Services Unit, ensuring the input of others outwith the Unit as required.
      • The action plan is updated and presented to each meeting of RIIC
      • Ongoing secretariat function is provided from within their Professional Services unit, including organising meetings in line with the terms of reference and joint decisions of the Chair and Academic Lead, and operating the member recruitment process as and when required.
    • The continued existence and Terms of Reference of the entity is reviewed, at the very least in line with the approval from RIIC (i.e. after 1 or 3 years of operation), but also on an ongoing basis: entities are strongly encouraged to emerge, disband, merge or split as and when needs change, irrespective of the next formal review point with RIIC.
  • With the Academic Lead, co-opts members beyond the core membership - whether permanently or for a certain amount of meetings.
  • Attends and chairs meetings, ensuring that decisions are reached in line with the process described in the Terms of Reference.
  • Attends meetings (most notably RIIC) to which proposals of the group are being presented, and co-presents (and co-owns) those proposals with the Academic Lead.
  • Attends meetings, and is an active member, of the Sub-Committee on Research Culture Coordination.
  • Co-ordinates completion of actions detailed in the action plan, and in doing so, ensures completion of relevant statutory processes (e.g. EIAs, DPIAs, etc.): to ensure this, Chairs are encouraged to meet with institutional leads on these areas, at the very least on EDI.

   

  Academic lead role description

  • Takes decisions on the following with the Chair, and co-owns those decisions:
    • Terms of Reference, including deciding on reserved powers, meeting frequency, core membership, and member recruitment process.
    • Member Role Descriptor.
    • Member Advert.
    • Reviewing the continued existence and Terms of Reference of the entity, at the very least in line with the approval from RIIC (i.e. after 1 or 3 years of operation), but also on an ongoing basis: entities are strongly encouraged to emerge, disband, merge or split as and when needs change, irrespective of the next formal review point with RIIC.
  • Involved in the operation of the member recruitment process as required, for example assisting in the advertising of roles, and any decision-making required within the process.
  • With the Chair, co-opts members beyond the core membership - whether permanently or for a certain amount of meetings.
  • Actively participates in the production of proposals, reports and action plans.
  • Attends meetings.
  • Chairs meetings when the Chair is unable due to absence or a conflict of interest, ensuring that decisions are reached in line with the process described in the Terms of Reference.
  • Attends meetings (most notably RIIC) to which proposals of the group are being presented, and co-presents (and co-owns) those proposals with the Chair.
  • Attends meetings, and is an active member, of the Sub-Committee on Research Culture Coordination.

   

  Representative member role description

  • Demonstrates clear interest and enthusiasm regarding, and experience of, the matters in the remit and purpose section of the Terms of Reference.
  • Attends, and actively contributes to, meetings, including actively engaging with the papers circulated ahead of meetings.
  • Actively participates in decision-making in relation to exercising the ‘reserved powers’ defined in the Terms of Reference, and the development of proposals produced for presentation elsewhere.
  • Actively participates in the production of proposals, reports and action plans, as required, including consulting with peers whom they represent.

   

• Process for recruitment of representative members

  Representative member application form for RIIC Sub-Committee on Research Integrity (Word) - please download a copy of this form to complete it

  Applicants need to demonstrate that they do or will meet the member role description, by submitting two short statements

  • one regarding their experience of, expertise in and passion for research integrity
  • one highlighting any diverse experiences or insights on research integrity they feel they would bring (for example, having undertaken research in different sectors, countries or cultures, or understanding of how a research area may be understood or experienced differently by particular identity groups).

  The Chair and Academic Lead use these statements to select which applicants to invite to join the Sub-Committee.