Canada’s Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research sets the policy — what counts as a breach, and what institutions and researchers are required to do. This guide covers something narrower and more procedural: what actually happens, step by step, once an allegation is made. That process runs through two Agency-level bodies — the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) and the Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) — and it has defined stages, reporting deadlines, and confidentiality obligations that don’t show up in a policy-level summary of the Framework.
SRCR and PRCR are not the same body
The two names get used almost interchangeably in casual conversation, but they do different jobs:
- SRCR is the operational secretariat. It is the point of contact for allegations that reach the Agencies, it manages case files, coordinates with institutions under the Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions, and prepares files for review.
- PRCR is an advisory body to the three Agencies (Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)). It reviews the case file SRCR prepares, determines whether Agency policy was breached, and recommends recourse where appropriate. PRCR does not make the final decision — that authority sits with the President of the relevant Agency.
Both are distinct from the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) and its own secretariat, which steward TCPS 2 — prospective human-subjects ethics review, not retrospective misconduct investigation. It is easy to conflate the two because both pairs are Tri-Agency bodies concerned with research conduct; they are not the same mechanism.
Two ways a case enters the process
Most allegations start at the institution, not with SRCR directly:
- Institution-led (the common path). The institution handles the allegation under its own RCR policy, which must meet the Framework’s minimum requirements. An institution’s Research Integrity Officer (RIO) typically leads this. The institution reports its process and findings to SRCR, which — together with PRCR — reviews that report before any Agency decision is made.
- Direct to SRCR. Some allegations cannot be handled at the institution — for example, where the allegation concerns the institution’s own conduct (its administration of Agency funds, or its compliance with Agency policy), or where a complaint is made directly to an Agency. In these cases SRCR manages the file itself rather than an institution.
The distinction matters operationally, but it does not mean institution-led cases bypass Agency oversight. Every case that proceeds to a formal investigation gets reported to SRCR and reviewed by PRCR — the institution does not have final say over whether a breach occurred.
Inquiry, then investigation: the institution’s two-stage process and its deadlines
Where an institution is handling a case, the Framework distinguishes two stages, and each has its own reporting clock running to SRCR:
- Inquiry — a preliminary assessment of whether the allegation, if substantiated, would constitute a breach, and whether a formal investigation is warranted. The institution is expected to submit its inquiry letter or inquiry report to SRCR within two months of receiving the allegation.
- Investigation — the formal fact-finding process that follows if the inquiry concludes one is warranted. The institution has an additional five months from the end of the inquiry to complete the investigation and submit its report to SRCR.
Added together, an institution has up to seven months from the date it receives an allegation that proceeds to a full investigation, to reporting its findings to SRCR. These timelines can be extended in consultation with SRCR where circumstances warrant, and the institution is expected to provide periodic status updates to SRCR until the case is closed — an allegation under investigation is not something an institution can simply sit on quietly for a year with no contact.
What SRCR and PRCR actually do with the file
Once a report reaches SRCR — whether from an institution or generated directly — the review has two layers:
- SRCR review. SRCR checks the report for completeness and whether the institution’s process met Agency requirements, and prepares the file for PRCR.
- PRCR review and recommendation. PRCR examines the file to determine whether there has been a breach of Agency policy, and, if so, recommends recourse consistent with the Framework.
PRCR’s recommendation is advisory. The final call belongs to the President of the Agency (or Agencies) whose funding is implicated, who weighs the PRCR recommendation together with the institution’s own findings, the severity of the breach, and any remedial action the institution or researcher already took.
Confidentiality and procedural constraints
Two obligations run through the whole process and are worth flagging specifically because they trip up institutions that treat a misconduct file the way they would treat an ordinary HR matter:
- An institution and a researcher cannot enter into a confidentiality agreement, settlement, or any other arrangement that would prevent the institution from reporting to the Agencies through SRCR. Reporting to SRCR is not something an institution can negotiate away as part of resolving a case internally.
- Anyone conducting an inquiry or investigation must sign a privacy and confidentiality agreement before starting, unless doing so already falls within their normal duties (for example, a standing Research Integrity Officer role).
Outcomes: what recourse actually looks like, and why it isn’t institution-specific
Where an Agency finds a breach occurred, the recourse it can impose includes a reprimand, requiring repayment of grant funds, suspension or termination of funding, and a period of ineligibility to hold or apply for Agency funding. Ineligibility has a cross-Agency effect: a finding of ineligibility at one of CIHR, NSERC, or SSHRC automatically triggers ineligibility at the other two, and across all tri-agency programs — including eligibility to serve on Agency review committees. A researcher cannot avoid the consequence of a CIHR finding by applying to NSERC instead.
See CASRAI’s dedicated guide on the range of consequences a misconduct finding can trigger for a broader treatment of institutional and funder-level sanctions, including how Canada’s cross-Agency approach compares to single-agency systems.
A transparency mechanism most institutions don’t know exists
PRCR publishes de-identified summaries of concluded case files — outlining the type of allegation, the process followed, and the recourse applied, with names and identifying details removed — as an education and awareness resource for institutions and researchers. They are a useful reference point for a Research Integrity Officer trying to calibrate how a given fact pattern is likely to be treated, since the Framework document itself describes categories of breach in the abstract rather than through worked outcomes.
How this compares to the U.S. process
Researchers and administrators familiar with the U.S. system will recognize the general shape — institution investigates first, a federal-level body reviews — but the specifics differ. CASRAI’s guide to how a research misconduct investigation works under the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and its companion piece on institutional vs. federal jurisdiction in research misconduct cases lay out the equivalent U.S. process for comparison; CASRAI also covers ORI itself and analogous systems elsewhere, including Japan’s MEXT framework and the Netherlands’ LOWI second-opinion process.
Frequently asked questions
What’s the difference between an inquiry and an investigation under the Framework?
An inquiry is the institution’s preliminary assessment of whether an allegation, if true, would be a breach and whether a full investigation is warranted; it is due to SRCR within two months of the allegation being received. An investigation is the formal fact-finding process that follows if the inquiry concludes one is needed, due to SRCR within a further five months.
Does SRCR investigate every allegation itself?
No. Most allegations are investigated by the institution under its own RCR policy, with the institution reporting its process and findings to SRCR for review. SRCR manages a file directly mainly where the institution cannot — most commonly where the allegation concerns the institution’s own conduct.
Who makes the final decision on a Tri-Agency misconduct case?
The President of the Agency (or Agencies) whose funding is implicated — CIHR, NSERC, or SSHRC — makes the final decision, taking into account PRCR’s recommendation, the institution’s findings, and the severity of the breach.
Does a finding at one Agency affect funding from the other two?
Yes. A finding of ineligibility at one of the three Agencies automatically extends to the other two and to all tri-agency programs, including eligibility to serve on Agency review committees.
Can an institution keep a misconduct case entirely confidential and just settle it internally?
No. An institution and researcher cannot agree to any arrangement that would prevent the institution from reporting the case to the Agencies through SRCR.
Related CASRAI resources
- Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (policy overview: breach categories, institutional requirements)
- Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
- TCPS 2 (Tri-Council Policy Statement)
- Panel on Research Ethics (PRE)
- RCR Training Requirements and Tracking
- Consequences of Research Misconduct
- How a Research Misconduct Investigation Works (U.S. ORI)
- Institutional vs. Federal Jurisdiction in Research Misconduct
- Integrity & Compliance overview
