A research integrity statement is the annual public report a UK university publishes under the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, covering its governance, training and misconduct-handling activity. Depth of disclosure varies sharply: some institutions publish only a principles statement, while others — including the Open University in its 2026 statement — publish allegation tallies and investigation outcomes.
A research integrity statement is defined by Universities UK’s Concordat as a governing-body-approved annual account of the steps an institution has taken to maintain rigour, transparency, honesty, and accountability in research, alongside a summary of misconduct allegations handled during the reporting year.
- What does the Concordat require in an annual statement?
- Worked example: the Open University’s 2026 statement
- How does disclosure depth compare across the sector?
- What should a fully compliant statement include?
- Frequently asked questions
- What this means for research administrators
What does the Concordat require in an annual statement?
The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, coordinated by Universities UK and now overseen by the UK Committee on Research Integrity (UKCORI), requires every signatory to publish an annual statement approved by its governing body. Signatories are transitioning to the refreshed 2025 edition of the Concordat, with full alignment expected by April 2026; until that point, institutions continue reporting against the 2019 edition’s requirements.
Under both editions, the statement must be publicly accessible on the institution’s website and must include an anonymised account of allegations of research misconduct received and how they were resolved. UKRIO’s self-assessment tooling encourages — but does not mandate — a common template, which is precisely why disclosure quality diverges so widely between institutions.
- Approval by the university’s governing body (council, senate or board)
- A narrative on training, culture and support for researchers
- An anonymised summary of misconduct allegations and outcomes
- Public web publication, with a copy sent to the Concordat secretariat
Worked example: the Open University’s 2026 statement
The Open University’s Research Integrity Statement 2026, approved by OU Council on 3 March 2026, covers the reporting period 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025. It names Professor Mark Brandon, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation, as senior lead, with Helen Castley, Senior Manager for Research Governance, as first point of contact.
The statement discloses three misconduct allegations during the period, none of which proceeded to a formal investigation and none of which were upheld. It also reports the launch of an online research integrity module for postgraduate researchers in autumn 2024, sector-facing open research training, and the university’s signing of the Concordat for Environmental Sustainability of Research. Oversight sits with the Human Research Ethics Committee, an Ethical Research Review Committee, and a newly established Animal Ethics Committee.
This is a useful baseline because it demonstrates the minimum viable version of Concordat compliance: named accountable officer, dated approval, allegation count, and training update — without case-level detail.
How does disclosure depth compare across the sector?
Compliance with the Concordat’s letter does not guarantee comparable transparency. Some institutions publish case-by-case misconduct tables; others confine the public statement to principles and point auditors to an internal report instead.
| Institution | Approving body | Misconduct data disclosed | Training disclosure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open University | OU Council | Allegation count (3), zero formal investigations, none upheld | New PGR online integrity module, autumn 2024 |
| University of Manchester | Research Compliance Committee, reporting to Planning and Resources Committee | Case-level table (e.g. 7 cases logged in the 2022-23 statement, with faculty, nature and outcome) | Mandatory 5-hour course for PGRs, 1-hour course for staff, repeated every 3 years |
| University of Cambridge | General Board of the Faculties | Not published on the public statement page; misconduct reporting sits in a separate Research Integrity Report to Council | References Guidelines on Good Research Practice; no published hours or frequency |
The gap is stark: Manchester’s public statement lists individually anonymised case outcomes and quantifies training hours and frequency, while Cambridge’s equivalent page sets out principles and policy links without allegation figures in the same document. The Open University sits between the two, disclosing an allegation count and outcome but not case-level detail.
For institutions and researchers assessing an organisation’s research misconduct policy or the maturity of its research integrity office, this variance matters more than whether a statement exists at all — a published statement with no allegation data offers limited assurance compared with one that itemises outcomes.
What should a fully compliant statement include?
Institutions revising their statement ahead of the April 2026 alignment deadline for the refreshed Concordat should treat the following as a minimum disclosure standard, based on the strongest examples in the sector.
- Governing-body approval date and named senior accountable officer
- Defined reporting period (financial or academic year)
- Anonymised allegation count, broken down by outcome (informal resolution, formal investigation, upheld/not upheld)
- Description of research integrity training provision, ideally with hours, frequency and audience (staff vs postgraduate researchers)
- Governance structure — named committee(s) and their reporting line to council or board level
- Reference to the institution’s research misconduct policy and how allegations are triaged
- A statement on the consequences of research misconduct applied where allegations are upheld
Frequently asked questions
What is an example of a research integrity statement?
The Open University’s 2026 statement is a working example: approved by OU Council on 3 March 2026, it reports three misconduct allegations, zero formal investigations, and new postgraduate training, alongside named senior accountability under the Concordat.
What are the five principles of research integrity?
Universities UK’s Concordat framework, as adapted across UK institutions, defines five core principles: honesty, rigour, transparency and open communication, care and respect for participants and colleagues, and accountability for one’s own research conduct.
Does a research integrity statement have to report misconduct numbers?
Yes — the Concordat requires an anonymised summary of misconduct allegations and outcomes in every annual statement. However, no single template is mandatory, so the level of detail — from a bare count to full case tables — varies significantly between institutions.
Who approves a university’s annual research integrity statement?
The Concordat requires approval by the institution’s governing body — typically a council, senate or board of governors — often via a delegated committee such as a research compliance or research integrity committee, before public web publication.
What this means for research administrators
As institutions align with the refreshed 2025 Concordat ahead of the April 2026 deadline, the sector faces a choice between minimum-viable compliance and genuine transparency. A statement that discloses only principles, with allegation data held back in an internal report, technically satisfies the Concordat’s publication requirement but tells funders, partners and prospective researchers little about how misconduct is actually handled.
Research administrators drafting or revising a statement should benchmark against Manchester’s case-level disclosure rather than the sector floor, and should treat training hours, frequency and audience as reportable metrics, not narrative colour. Institutions publishing thin statements risk being read — correctly — as less mature on research governance than peers with equivalent misconduct rates but fuller disclosure.
For research administration teams building out governance documentation more broadly, CASRAI’s research administration resources and research terminology dictionary provide further grounding in the frameworks referenced above.