Promoting high standards of research integrity and positive research culture
1. Policies and Systems
1.1. The University of Bath is a leading research institution committed to maintaining the highest standards of research excellence and integrity. This is the seventh University statement setting out the actions and initiatives we have undertaken to sustain and further enhance integrity in our research.
1.2. The University of Bath fully upholds the principles outlined in the updated version of The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (UKCORI, April 2025).
1.3. We have a long-standing commitment to high standards in research ethics and integrity, which is reflected in our University Strategy and Code of Ethics. As a part of our commitment, in 2017, we drew upon the Leiden Manifesto and the Metric Tide to develop our own set of principles outlining our approach to research assessment and management, including the responsible use of quantitative indicators. We are signatories to DORA (San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment).
1.4. The current strategy 2021-2026 includes a key objective: ‘actively engaging locally, regionally, nationally and internationally to help to build towards our strategic objectives, serving to strengthen our culture of research integrity, and enabling our researchers to deliver their full potential’.
1.5. We are committed to providing an appropriate framework to support a research culture that is underpinned by research integrity. This involves, in part, providing clear guidance about policies, procedures and responsibilities, training and supporting researchers according to their responsibilities, and monitoring the implementation of such policies and procedures. There is a dedicated page containing information and news about all research policy and governance matters.
1.6. A new approach to ethics review process was launched in April 2023 which includes a new online system for submitting and reviewing research ethics applications.
2. Culture, development and leadership
2.1. The University of Bath has a long standing commitment to supporting the development of a good research culture. Research integrity and ethics is one of the research culture pillars alongside career development, collegiality, open research, research design and research recognition.
2.2. At our University, the University Ethics Committee, reports to Council and provides advice to the Vice-Chancellor on ethical matters that fall within their delegated responsibilities. This committee keeps the Code of Ethics under review and consider policy frameworks which may be developed to facilitate a more consistent and appropriate application of the code.
2.3. The Academic Ethics and Integrity Committee advises Senate on the development, implementation and review of procedures and guidelines relating to academic ethical and integrity issues.
2.4. The Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee is responsible to Senate for the development of strategies to assist the University in meeting its research objectives.
2.5. The University Research Ethics Committees, all reporting into the Academic Ethics and Integrity Committee, have been set up to consider applications, provide robust and proportionate advice on the ethical implications of projects, and liaise directly with researchers in a supportive and constructive way.
2.6. The ‘Open Research Steering Group’ reports to the Academic Ethics and Integrity Committee. It provides leadership and monitors the delivery against the open research workplan in partnership with UKRN.
2.7. We are part of the OR4 research community a national programme aimed at accelerating the uptake of high quality research practices.
2.8. The ‘Research Governance Steering Group’ reports to the Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee. It is responsible for developing processes to ensure that all policies and practices that support research activity are fit for purpose and adopted across the University.
2.9. The Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) supports the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research to ensure that the research related actions in the University Strategy are fully realised. The Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) has particular responsibility for embedding principles of good research culture, integrity and ethics so as to enable growth of new and existing research governance activities.
2.10. The Research Policy, Governance and Integrity team, established in November 2022 as ‘Research Governance and Compliance’, is responsible for managing the Institutional-wide ethical review processes purposely designed to facilitate and enable research with due regard for the dignity, rights, health, safety and privacy of those involved. This team is also responsible for developing and delivering training to all researchers (staff and students) across the University in research governance, ethics and integrity matters. The team has strategic oversight of research governance policies and processes and monitor compliance with relevant frameworks to ensure that research carried out with or by the University is ethical, lawful and of the highest standards of integrity and rigour. The Director of the team supports the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research in carrying investigations into alleged research misconduct.
2.11. At a School/Department level the DREOs (Departmental Research Ethics Officers) provide help and advice on specific projects. The Deans of each Faculty or School work with the Heads of Department/Division and have the overall responsibility for the performance of academics and researchers in their respective Faculties/School.
2.12. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research is the contact for any research integrity queries including research misconduct.
2.13. The Director of Finance is the confidential liaison for whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about research integrity.
3. Communications and engagement
3.1. Training on research integrity is mandatory for all research staff and doctoral students. The current rate of completion for core research staff is 63.2%. This training is also available to all other staff as well as undergraduate and Master students.
3.2. The ‘Research Essentials’ course, mandatory for all Lecturers on probation includes specific sessions on research ethics, integrity and data management.
3.3. We have continued to improve our research culture to support our staff and students by providing guidance and tools to ensure compliance and facilitate informed decisions. These include:
publishing a regular research ethics newsletter to promote ethical behaviour, foster community engagement, educate and inform staff and students. This includes highlighting best practice, publishing updates on ethical standards, changes in regulations or policies, and celebrating key achievements that exemplify participation in key initiatives;
hosting monthly research ethics ‘Open Houses’ to focus discussion on ethical matters, research governance and best practice;
a continuous improvement of our website, resulting in better sign posting, information about events/training available, guidance, FAQs and case studies;
hosting Dr Penny Hawkins, Head of RSPCA Animals in Science Department, to deliver the annual AWERB’s lecture. This year’s lecture was entitled ‘Ethical blind spots: what we can miss when we think we’re doing ethics’.
continuing to develop training for committee members, setting up an induction session for lay members and refreshed training sessions for Departmental Research Ethics Officers;
upon request delivering bespoke research ethics training sessions for Doctoral and Master Students in Departments,
upon request delivering bespoke training sessions on export control and NSI Act for Departments.
a program of Trusted Research communications continues to be delivered utilising materials provided by the NPSA. Communications have included including blog posts, digital posters, and items on our Trusted Research SharePoint portal.
Continued engagement via the Trusted Research Network (TRN), a group set up by the University of Bath in 2023. Membership has grown to 68 members from more than 20 universities. The TRN meet approximately every quarter and share best practice and guidance relating to Trusted Research.
4. Monitoring and reporting
4.1. We continue to monitor compliance and are committed to carrying out the following annual audits:
management of human tissue samples.
Department Research Ethics Officer survey to monitor issues, identify training needs and encourage discussions at Departmental level.
Compliance with our ethics and governance processes for both externally and internally (also described as ‘unfunded’) research activity
4.2. Our ethics form includes a 'Trusted Research' section, embedding compliance checks to ensure all research aligns with key regulatory frameworks such as Export Controls, the National Security & Investment Act, and the Nagoya Protocol. Monthly reviews of reports are conducted to ensure compliance.
4.3. We continue to monitor and demonstrate progress, against our workplan to ensure compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
5. Investment in Resource
5.1 We have secured additional institutional investment to appoint a full‑time Research Ethics Manager, strengthening our capacity to support compliance activity and enabling more timely and effective management of investigations into allegations of research misconduct.
5.2 In addition, further funding has been secured to support the procurement of Research Flow, which will significantly enhance the user experience by enabling appropriate governance approvals and ethics reviews to proceed in parallel. The system will also facilitate more efficient referral to subject‑matter experts, reducing delays and supporting proportionate, timely decision‑making.
6. Ethics@Bath system
6.1. Through our evaluation exercise, we identified a number of opportunities for improvement, several of which have been implemented during this period. We have also agreed to undertake a calibration exercise across ethics committees to ensure that decisions are consistent, proportionate, and aligned with agreed standards, regardless of which committee is reviewing a project.
7. Research ethics and integrity
7.1. The University has published a code of practice on ‘authorship and acknowledgements in research outputs’ and has updated its ‘principles of research assessment and management’. Furthermore, dedicated training on responsible research assessment has been released.
7.2. The Centre for Qualitative Research hosted a symposium focused on ‘participation, access and inclusion’ in qualitative research.
7.3. In light of the publication of the revised Concordat to Support Research Integrity, we revised our research integrity workplan to integrate new requirements with findings which arose from the gap analysis undertaken against the UK CORI indicators of conditions that support research integrity.
8. Training
8.1. With support from funds awarded by the Research England’s Research Culture fund, and in collaboration with colleagues from the Doctoral College, we have developed a board‑game‑based learning intervention focused on research integrity including open research practices, due diligence, cybersecurity, data management and research ethics. The initiative is designed to promote discussion, awareness, and good practice, and will be launched in June 2026.
8.2. We have launched the UKRIO research integrity course, alongside a new suite of research ethics courses focused on supporting research involving human participation. The new courses are: Ethics of Research Involving Human Participation: An Introduction; Navigating the Complexity, Risks and Benefits of Emotionally Challenging or Sensitive Research; and Research with Children and Young People. Completion of this new suite of courses is mandatory for members of the University’s Research Ethics Committees and Departmental Research Ethics Officers (DREOs). Completion is strongly encouraged for departmental‑level ethics reviewers, supervisors, second readers, and all research‑active staff and students at the University of Bath.
8.3. The ‘Research Essentials’ course for research staff on probation has been updated to incorporate case-based learning and scenario discussion, with a specific focus on virtue ethics and their practical application in underpinning responsible research conduct.
8.4. With support from the Research England Research Culture Fund, and in collaboration with colleagues in the Doctoral College, we have created and launched Integrity Quest, a cooperative board game. The game is designed as a training tool to support meaningful discussions around ethics and research integrity through a series of realistic scenarios. Integrity Quest was launched at the Doctoral College Festival of Ideas and will be available for download and print under a free Creative Commons licence, in line with our commitment to open research practices. The game will be externally presented at upcoming events such as the UKRN conference, Warwick's International Research Culture Conference. Early feedback has been very positive. Among participants, 71% described the game as fun and 83% as engaging. In addition, 75% said they would recommend or use the game, and 67% strongly agreed that it encourages meaningful discussion during play.
9. Open Research
9.1. The Open Research Steering Group was set up in the Spring of 2025. The group continues to make progress on key actions as per the action plan. During this academic year we focused our priorities in appointing a new Institutional Lead as well as three local network leads. We have also refreshed and launched our annual survey to evaluate the effectiveness of our action plan. We have continued to support the ‘Bath Open Research Group’ which is a postgraduate-led group interested in making research more accessible, transparent and rigorous.
10. External engagement
10.1. We have continued to engage externally to contribute towards the shaping of national frameworks, policies and processes. In recognition of our contributions to the sector we have been awarded the ‘thought leaders’ award by Infonetica.
10.2. We have maintained an active collaboration with UKRIO, engaging in sector events and roundtable discussions that inform the development of national guidance and best practice. Notably, our contributions have helped shape the most recent suite of training courses, including the development of new materials to support effective management of investigations into research misconduct.
10.3. In addition, we have collaborated with UUK's Research Integrity Concordat Secretariat to input into the updated draft template for Research Integrity Annual Statements. In recognition of the quality of this input, UUK has asked us to be part of a small group discussion to feedback on the supporting guidance for the template.
10.4. We have also continued to collaborate with other Institution’s investigations into research misconduct by serving as external panel members when approached.
10.5. We will present an evaluation of our research ethics initiatives and their contribution to culture change at the next ARMA Conference through a poster presentation. In addition, we aim to showcase our research integrity board game at the Research Culture Conference hosted by the University of Warwick.
11. Reflections on progress and plans for future developments
11.1. We have continued to develop and monitor progress against the approved workplans for the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, Trusted Research, and Open Research. Delivery has progressed largely as planned, with activity focused on embedding agreed actions and improving awareness of institutional expectations. Work in these areas has strengthened coordination and consistency, although the full impact of some initiatives will take longer to assess.
11.2. In parallel, initial engagement with Departmental Research Ethics Officers has helped to inform the development of the role within the context of the new system and to identify areas where further clarification and support are required. Progress in this area has been slower than anticipated due to resource constraints; however, appropriate resource is now in place and this will be a priority focus in the coming months to fully realise the opportunities it brings.
11.3. Further to our sustained efforts to raise awareness of expected standards and to foster a culture in which concerns can be raised without stigma, we have observed a continued increase in self reporting. Researchers are proactively disclosing instances of non compliance within their own projects, indicating increased confidence that errors can be identified early and addressed in a supportive and proportionate way.
11.4. We have also noted an increase in reports from doctoral thesis examiners concerning the fabrication of references, linked to the inappropriate use of generative AI. While this presents a new and evolving challenge, these reports have informed our continued emphasis on targeted training, guidance, and examiner awareness in this area.
11.5. Since our previous statement we have developed a guidance page on the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), alongside a briefing note and a dedicated SharePoint site (Bath log in required) providing detailed information and guidance on the process for registering activity that may fall within scope. This has improved access to information, although further work is needed to assess levels of engagement and understanding across the research community.
11.6. With regard to our special procedures, some planned activity was superseded by the publication of UKRIO’s guidance and training in priority areas we had previously identified. As mentioned above, we collaborated in the review of the courses launched and have made them mandatory for key members of staff. In addition, we hosted a Research Ethics Open House to raise awareness of best practice when conducting research involving vulnerable participants, supported by the publication of guidance on our own webpages. To further support researchers dealing with non genuine participants, we have invited an external speaker to deliver a Research Ethics Open House on this topic in July 2026.
12. Case study on good practice (optional)
12.1. We submitted a case study last year entitled 'University of Bath – enriching engagement with the ethics process'. A case study with evaluation data about the impact of our interventions will be submitted as part of our annual statement.
12.2. In addition, we will submit a case study about the development and impact of Integrity Quest.
13. Statement on processes that the organisation has in place for dealing with allegations of misconduct
13.1. Our research misconduct processes were reviewed in the academic year 21/22 and are currently under review. The University has the following mechanisms to manage allegations of research misconduct:
Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research is the contact for any research integrity queries including research misconduct and dignity and respect issues relating to research.
Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) is responsible for embedding principles of good research culture and enabling the growth of new and existing research governance activities.
Director of Finance is the primary confidential liaison for whistle-blowers or any other person wishing to raise concerns about research integrity.
a Senior Independent Director who can be contacted as an independent person;
an online form to facilitate the raising of concerns relating to serious wrong doing;
a dedicated e-mail: whistleblowing@bath.ac.uk
13.2. Mandatory training for staff includes: diversity in the workplace, unconscious bias, bribery act, data protection, research integrity and how to tackle harassment.
13.3. The Code of good practice in research integrity which was revised last year sets out the principles and standards that everyone must adhere to if they are involved in research at the University of Bath.
13.4. Our approach to investigations of allegations of research misconduct was revised in 2022 and implemented in 2023. By introducing a triage step we have been able to constructively address poor-practice and resolve issues of poor judgement or established bad practices with good outcomes. The clearly articulated steps for investigation of allegations of research misconduct have allowed our researchers, and responding parties, to understand our processes. We have received good feedback on our approach even though the subject is often very personal and sensitive.
13.5. The revised procedure allows for a joint investigation into allegations of research misconduct which contains aspects of bullying and harassment. By allowing for allegations to be jointly investigated under 2 policies (dignity & respect as well as misconduct) we are able to run a single process, one set of interviews etc which is less stressful for all involved and allows for more efficient conduct of the investigation.
14. Allegations of research misconduct
14.1. Each year the University receives details of a range of concerns relating to research integrity. During this academic year the PVC(R) received 38 complaints regarding research integrity, which included:
- 3 cases of alleged Falsification
- 3 cases of alleged plagiarism
- 3 cases of failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations which was upheld after formal investigation
- 3 cases of misrepresentation (e.g. data involvement, interests, qualification and/or publication history)
- 1 case with multiple areas of concern received in a single allegation
- 25 Other cases which are detailed as follows:
14.2. Our work to review our processes and system relating to research ethics resulted in a heightened awareness of best practice. This has led to researchers, both staff and students, to come forward and report instances where they have not observed best practice or established protocol in the work they have either carried out or are still working on. In these instances we work with researchers to ensure that remedial action is taken so as to align the conduct of the project with the standards we wish to uphold. This is done in line with the process articulated in Appendix II, retrospective review, of our Policy to manage research misconduct. From the 14 requested this year, 10 are still under consideration and 4 have been granted a favourable opinion retrospectively following review by the relevant research ethics committee/panel.
14.3. Concerns raised by members of the public about our research which do not constitute misconduct or a breach of integrity. All issues were resolved by providing further information to the reporting party.
14.4. Self-reported deviations of protocol or issues which do not amount to research misconduct or breach of integrity but require notification to regulator or corrective action.