University of St Andrews research integrity statement for academic year 2023 to 2024

The University of St Andrews fully supports the principles laid out in the UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity (Universities UK, updated 2019): this report summarises our approach to embedding research integrity in our activities, including ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Concordat, and relevant activities undertaken.

Section 1: Key contact information

Name of organisation: University of St Andrews

Type of organisation: Higher education institution

Date statement approved by governing body : 4 April 2025

Web address of organisation’s research integrity page https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/research/integrity-ethics/research-integrity/

Named senior member of staff to oversee research integrity: Professor Tom Brown, Vice-Principal (Research, Collections & Innovation), vpresearch@st-andrews.ac.uk

Named member of staff who will act as a first point of contact for anyone wanting more information on matters of research integrity: Dr Richard Malham, Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance, researchintegrity@st-andrews.ac.uk

Section 2: Promoting high standards of research integrity and positive research culture - description of actions and activities undertaken

Description of current systems and culture

Policies, guidance and systems

Research integrity

World-leading research quality remains at the heart of what St Andrews does, and meeting this aim requires the highest standards of research integrity.

In pursuing this objective, the University operates in line with the provisions laid out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.

Oversight of research integrity activity at the University of St Andrews is conducted at an institutional and operational level. At the institutional level this is led by the Vice-Principal (Research, Collections & Innovation), who chairs the University’s Ethics and Research Integrity Assurance Group (EARIAG). At an operational level, oversight of research integrity activity is led by the Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance.

As articulated in annual statements, the University is already compliant with the core requirements of the Concordat. However, the University’s approach is to focus on continuous improvement activities aimed at culture-building, taking an academic-led approach to ensure that we strategically focus on activities with a high likelihood of impact.

Research integrity is a key aspect of the University’s work on research culture: it is acknowledged that progress on building a culture of integrity will depend significantly upon developments in wider research culture.

St Andrews has had in place policies and procedures relating to good research conduct and research misconduct since 2013. Overhauled policies and guidance were launched in January 2019, reviewed and updated in June 2021, and are publicised via staff, postgraduate, postgraduate supervisor and Head of School induction events, a training module that covers the policies and procedures, and all talks/workshops on research integrity.

Research involving humans, their samples or data

The University Teaching and Research Ethics Committee (UTREC) continues to regularly consider broad and emergent ethical issues including those raised by changes to guidance or policy plus novel or high-risk ethics applications from across the University.

The committee continues to balance regular standing items and monitoring with process development and in-depth discussion.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

The University’s guidance, processes and access to online training relating to research involving animals are provided through the Research involving animals’ webpage. This webpage includes links to: public facing webpages (which contain a video and information on what the animals experience and the numbers involved), and a webpage on what types of animals are involved in research. There is also guidance on how to apply for research involving animals.

Our animal welfare and ethics committee (AWEC) (our institutional AWERB, animal welfare ethics review body) continuously reviews and develops processes relating to the oversight of research involving animals to ensure maximal clarity and thus compliance amongst researchers. The process documents and application forms are systematically reviewed and the versions of these documents are either uploaded or are available for researchers or members of the public upon request.

The existing ethics application database stores applications for non-licensed research involving animals, and a transition to the new digital ethics system will occur in due course.

Awareness-raising, training and culture

Research integrity

The University provides a range of training opportunities for staff and students. A number of PGR training opportunities refer to research integrity.

Online training

Seven online training modules are available to all of those with University account access. The first of these focuses on St Andrews guidance, policies and contact points, and the other six modules cover the following topics: introduction to research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, ethical approval and practice, collaborative research and data management, authorship, peer review and publication ethics, plagiarism and recycling of text and research outputs. Presented to PGRs as ‘Training in Research Integrity and Ethics (TRIE)’, completion of all seven modules is mandatory for initial matriculation.

Events

Inductions for new staff, postgraduate research students, supervisors of postgraduate research students and Heads of School consistently contain dedicated content on research integrity, ethics and governance, both in the form of explicit talks on the issue, and distribution of fliers providing the key research integrity information and contact points. There is brief content on research integrity, ethics and governance in the University-wide staff handbook. Workshops are provided on an ad hoc basis, e.g. for undergraduate students on the Laidlaw scholarship programme in research and leadership and different cohorts of Physics postgraduates.

Research involving humans, their samples or data

The online Moodle training course continues to be well utilised. Training is provided one to one to School ethics administrators and convenors by the Senior Research Governance Officer. The Senior Research Governance Officer facilitates and attends handover sessions when School ethics committee convenors change. Ad-hoc sessions continue to be delivered at School level.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

For any research involving animals the researchers must be trained, supervised, and assessed to the required level of competence. For those active with research involving animals there are a variety of training and induction provisions, including: specific induction material is provided to ethics committee members, which is based on LASA (Laboratory Animal Science Association) Developing induction materials for AWERB members but customised to our University; ethics committee members are offered tours of the facilities; researchers must complete inductions of any secure unit before starting any research in that location, including reading and understanding the Code of Practice for that unit; training for handling animals, and subsequent assessment of competency, are provided as required; and researchers requiring a personal licence attend external accredited training courses, which covers law and ethics relating to animal research as well as species-specific information.

External engagement

Across all of the below areas, we are members of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA), and participate in its Special Interest Groups.

Research integrity

Regarding research integrity broadly, the University is a subscriber to UKRIO, which has resulted in access to expert information and advice from the UKRIO team and attendance at UKRIO events, which provide valuable learning and networking opportunities for members of the RIC. The University also actively participates in the Scottish Research Integrity Network (SRIN).

Research involving humans, their samples or data

The University continues to engage with other Scottish HE organisations (via SRIN on Teams and the ARMA Ethics Special Interest Group mailing list), including sharing of resources and best practice. We also liaise directly with other HEIs and advisors on governance and ethics approvals around research with human participants involving the Ministry of Defence.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

Significant external engagement continues, in part due to the continuing developments arising from the Home Office Change Programme. The typical networks and engagements that have occurred are with the: Home Office and UK Establishment Licence Holders network regarding the Home Office changes; external network ScotPIL which develops and assesses the provision of training for animal research across Scotland; Scottish AWERB Hub, a network for those involved and coordinate the activities of their Scottish animal welfare and ethics committees; and the HOLTIF - the Home Office Liaison Training and Information Forum is a UK wide network for those with specific roles within the animal research regulations. The University is in regular contact with the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA). The University regularly organises, with the Universities of Dundee and Aberdeen, joint 3Rs/culture of care webinars - for all license holders, Named People and welfare technicians in those institutions. The University provides a return to the annual survey of the Concordat on Openness in Animal Research.

Monitoring and reporting

In spring 2021, a research project at St Andrews was undertaken in which over 600 members of the University community (very large given the size of the University – this is roughly equivalent to the amount of staff returned to the REF) responded to a survey regarding research culture, with a balanced representation from Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. In contrast to other surveys on research culture, across the sector and at other Universities, the results demonstrated strong perceptions that the University is taking integrity seriously (67%), and that research at the University is undertaken with honesty (63%).

Research integrity

In the absence of established indicators of integrity culture across the sector, we keep track of the following to inform our understanding of how effective our above efforts have been: trends in numbers of questions, concerns and allegations year to year; completion of online training modules; feedback on training and induction activities; trends in results against relevant CEDARS question year to year, including against nationally-benchmarked responses to those questions.

Research involving humans, their samples or data

All research involving humans, their samples or data is subject to ethical review by a School ethics committee, and summaries of every application are reviewed on a regular basis (monthly) either at a meeting of the University-level committee, UTREC, or virtually via Teams. This monitoring results in in-depth discussion of the issues raised by projects, sometimes resulting in researchers being invited to present on their work. This occasionally prompts development of or updates to guidance on a particular topic that is then shared across the University via the webpages and email. Numbers of applications processed per year plus data such as training completion are presented for discussion each year at UTREC and then EARIAG, with consideration of any trends in the data over the years and whether there are any concerns about engagement. The University’s research ethics, integrity and governance team liaise regularly with academics, Schools, and professional services to identify and resolve issues relating to research involving humans, wherever these may be identified in the research lifecycle.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

All research involving animals, their samples or data is subject to ethical review by a School ethics committee, and numbers of applications for licenced and non-licenced work are reviewed regularly by the University-level committee, AWEC. AWEC also discusses best practice relating to and arising from projects undertaken and ensures that it is shared as widely as possible across the University. Numbers of applications processed per year are presented for discussion each year at AWEC and then EARIAG, with consideration of any trends in the data over the years and whether there are any concerns with engagement,

Changes and developments during the period under review, reflections on progress, and plans for future developments

A key focus for the future will be the (reformulated) Sub Committee on Research Integrity – recruitment of representative members and development of a new action plan. External developments, such as work around AI and potential indicators of research integrity will undoubtedly factor into that work. Other work will likely include refreshing training, reviewing webpages, and exploring options for showcasing good practice.

Policies, guidance and systems

Research integrity

The ‘Research Integrity Committee’ was reformed as a the ‘RIIC sub-committee on research integrity’, co-led by one professional staff member and one academic. Work will begin to advertise for reps: four academics, one technician; and one School/Dept level research support.

A ‘short life working group on recognising contributions to research’ was set up to “develop guidance on ‘recognising contributions to research’, regarding how individuals’ (from all job families and seniorities) varied and various contributions to research activities are recognised in outputs, from articles, chapters and books, to talks and webpages etc.” This work arises in part from analysis of trends in, and lessons learned from, previous questions, concerns and allegations, as well as work around research culture, and the Technician Commitment: it will be undertaken over the coming year.

The Research Misconduct Policy was, and will continue to be, reviewed in light of the March 2023 UKRIO updated procedure, in liaison with the Principal’s Office, HR and Data Protection, and other Universities, and taking into account lessons learned. Core issues include: appeals, handling of informal actions, data sharing, and hand-off from formal investigations to disciplinary processes.

Research involving humans, their samples or data

The committee continues to build upon recommendations raised by a self-audit using the UKRIO/ARMA (Association of Research Managers and Administrators) tool, including preparing to move from ‘approval’ wording to ‘opinion’.

The project to put in place a digital system for managing research ethics has made significant progress, including completion of the tendering and contract process, configuration of the system, testing, developments of training and support materials, and piloting. The system is anticipated to ‘go live’ in late Semester 1 or early Semester 2 2024-25.

Work in the coming year will include implementation of the digital ethics management system, which includes the transition to ‘opinion’ terminology. This will ensure support and resource for ethics committees to reduce time spent on basic administrative and quality checks (for example, through use of logic in application forms, workflows and in-system validation) and focus on review and evaluation of ethics issues and interrelated processes around research involving humans and facilitate positive, collegiate and supportive peer relationships between the University’s ethics reviewers, convenors and administrators.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

A process began to put in place more guidance to avoid an infrequently-encountered but important issue: the non-obtaining of timely ethical review for research involving animals that is not regulated under ASPA.

A ongoing continuous improvement approach saw processes to adjust activity in line with emerging best practice.

Activity continues to ensure documentation is all in place to meet the recently-changed requirements of a Home Office ‘full governance systems’ audit. This piece of work is expected to lead to enhanced coverage, consistency and clarity of relevant processes and their documentation, and consequently a more efficient and effective system for ensuring ethics and welfare in relation to research involving animals.

The secondary data application process was reviewed, and will continue subject to: some refinements identified through use; enhancement of the monitoring and reporting of the process; improved visibility of and access to the process for all researchers at the University; and consideration of how reputational risk issues are being handled in the process.

Awareness-raising, training and culture

Research integrity

The ‘short life working group on recognising contributions to research’ mentioned in the previous section will be undertaken so as to engage a wide range of people in a wide range of Schools, Departments and Professional Services Units.

Twenty spaces have been reserved for members of the team and others to appraise a new online training offering from UKRIO against our current provision. This training is being piloted for a year before being made available for use by UKRIO subscriber institutions.

Following successful annual workshops with Physics postgraduates, more disciplines are coming forwards seeking to put something similar in place, which will be an area of future work.

Research involving humans, their samples or data

Work in the coming year will include: considerable updates to training, including new Moodle courses and video tutorials to support the new digital system for managing research ethics, and subsequent process and guidance change, plus stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising activities.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

A successful workshop on aseptic technique was organised, led by the University’s Named Veterinary Surgeon, involving researchers from both the University of St Andrews and the University of Dundee. This workshop received excellent reviews and will likely be organised annually.

Work in the coming year will include: moving forwards with plans to organise a workshop on preparation of diagnostic samples; a review and refresh of training policy (for all cohorts of persons involved in research involving animals), and refresher training for Named People where needed; a review and relaunch of the ‘local’ module; and delivering more visible and co-ordinated activity around the 3Rs and ‘culture of care.

External engagement

Research integrity

The Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance spoke at a sector-wide event, organised by the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, and the UK Committee on Research Integrity, about our approach to reporting numbers in annual statements (considered sector-leading on transparency), and subsequently advised another University on collecting and reporting questions, concerns and allegations, following our approach being highlighted in the UK Committee on Research Integrity presented its analysis of research integrity annual statements.

The University hosted a one-day meeting of the Scottish Research Integrity Network. Representatives from across Scottish research organisations listened to talks and engaged in workshop sessions on the topics of research misconduct investigations and research ethics committee practice, with guest speakers James Parry (UK Research Integrity Office) and Dr Cristina Douglas (University of Aberdeen).

The Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance participated in a national level workshop assessing potential indicators of research integrity, part of the UK Committee on Research Integrity’s work on this issue.

The Head of Research Policy, Integrity and Governance attended the June 2024 meeting of the UK Committee on Research Integrity, in Dundee.

Research involving humans, their samples or data

Communication with other UK HE organisations has been critical to sourcing and specifying a digital system for managing research ethics, through exploring use and implementation of an electronic ethics management system, as well as the surrounding structures and processes at other UK HEIs.

Work in the coming year will include attending ARMA, UKRIO, and other events, including participation in the ARMA mentoring programme.

Research involving animals, their samples or data

A joint 3Rs/culture of care webinar was organised with the Universities of Dundee and Aberdeen. This event comprised two talks, one from individuals at Medical Research Council Harwell on managing mouse colonies, and one from a researcher and senior technician at St Andrews on rodent environmental enrichment strategies.

The return to the annual Concordat survey was more substantial than in previous years, capturing a wider range of activity at the University than before, due to a more substantial process being developed for collating the response.

Monitoring and reporting

Research integrity

The University achieved an impressive result in the nationally run and benchmarked 2023 Culture, Employment, and Development in Academic Research Survey (CEDARS), as per the following quote from the University’s analysis and commentary from CRAC/Vitae:

“One area in which the responses for St Andrews stand out positively is the percentage of respondents (78%) who agreed that their institution promotes the highest standard of research integrity and conduct, above CEDARS UK 69%. Similarly, 60% of St Andrews respondents were familiar with institutional mechanisms to report incidents of research misconduct; above the CEDARS UK figure of 55%”

Research on research culture in St Andrews was undertaken in 2021 and 2023. In comparing the results across both instances, the following comment was made:

“Positive things about research culture that are present in both 2021 and 2023 include perceptions that policies related to research integrity continue to work well and are embedded in our research culture”

Case study on good practice (optional)

The following is an excerpt from the UK Committee on Research Integrity report on annual statements:

“The University of St Andrews provides a table breaking down any questions asked, concerns raised, allegations received and ongoing investigations from the past four academic years. This data transparently illustrates formal and informal processes for managing misconduct concerns and is helpful in considering trends over time.”

Section 3: Addressing research misconduct

Statement on processes that the organisation has in place for dealing with allegations of misconduct and Information on investigations of research misconduct that have been undertaken

The Research Misconduct Policy and its Annexe provide a transparent process for reporting and investigating of allegations of research misconduct, a process which articulates and manifests appropriate principles and mechanisms to ensure that investigations are thorough and fair, carried out in a transparent and timely manner, and involve appropriate confidentiality. The process also includes provisions for appropriate reporting to external bodies and issuing of public statements.

Guidance on the various contact points available for asking questions, raising concerns and making allegations relating to research misconduct are provided on our webpage and form the emphatic central message of all awareness-raising activities (see section two, and the Annexe to this statement). Because of the importance of research integrity, we have a separate email account for anyone with queries on matters of research integrity (researchintegrity@st-andrews.ac.uk). We have a point of contact to act as confidential liaison for those making a public interest disclosure (‘whistleblowers’): details can be found here.

In relation to bullying and harassment, the University has a Dignity and Respect at Work policy.

The Research Misconduct Policy and its Annexe are reviewed every 2 years, and are currently under review (see section 2). The whistle blowing policy, and dignity and respect at work policy, are due for review in late 2024.

We take an approach where we encourage individuals to raise questions and concerns as early as possible, and promote a variety of routes for resolution beyond the formal investigation process, and that there are no ‘stupid questions’. We also take a strong approach to learning lessons from all interactions around research integrity/misconduct, to refine our provisions and guide our academic-led approach. Consequently, we track and report on the numbers and topics of all the questions and concerns regarding research integrity, and allegations of research misconduct, as per below (and as per the case study in section 2). We believe that this approach is related to the above-sector-average levels of trust in our processes, as indicated in the monitoring aspect of section 2.

	Academic year 2018 to 2019	Academic year 2019 to 2020	Academic year 2020 to 2021	Academic year 2021to 2022	Academic year 2022 to 2023	Academic year 2023 to 2024
Questions asked	3	5	6	6	4	7
Concerns raised	9	8	5	3	4	5
Allegations received (for which investigations have concluded)	1*	0*	3	2	1	0
Allegations received (for which investigations are ongoing)	-	-	1	1	0	1

*as reported before the introduction of the questions and concerns terminology: both were together referred to as ‘inquiries’ in these years’ statements.

Data has not been broken down by discipline, type of misconduct or funding body because that could potentially allow for the identification of individuals or research projects, given the size of our institution and numbers of events being reported above.

Definitions:

A ‘question’ is an enquiry relating to general guidance on good research conduct, or explicitly related to a specific piece of research conducted under the auspices of another organisation.
A ‘concern’ is an enquiry explicitly related to a specific piece of research conducted under the auspices of the University.
‘Allegations received’ refers to the receipt of a formal allegation in writing, all of which are investigated in accordance with the Research Misconduct Policy.

The questions and concerns were on the topics of (brackets indicate the number of times the topic came up in separate approaches, and the area of the University from which they arose):

Questions:

Appropriate institutional affiliation on research outputs in which substantive parts of the published activity were undertaken elsewhere (1 from Arts and Humanities, 1 - Social Sciences)
The use of generative AI in writing grant applications (1 - Sciences)
Regarding authorship guidelines when certain contributors to a project have disengaged from its formalisation in a research output (1 - Social Sciences)
General guidance on integrity and governance for a specific project (1 – Professional Services)
Researcher ownership of IP in relation to work undertaken but not yet completed (1 - Social Sciences)
Advice on action to take when suspecting research misconduct occurring elsewhere (1 – Sciences)

Concerns:

Sharing research data associated with complex ethical approvals (1 – Professional Services)
Anonymous report of potential falsification of research materials; unable to follow up due to lack of any specific details (1 – Social Sciences)
Misappropriation of ideas by a PhD supervisor (1 – Sciences)
Breach of ethical approval by an undergraduate student (1 – Social Sciences)
The application of the research misconduct policy to cases of academic misconduct involving PGRs (1 – Arts and Humanities)