How UKRIO Defines Research Misconduct: UK Guide

UKRIO defines research misconduct as behaviours that deliberately or recklessly fall short of the standards expected in the conduct of research, from the initial idea through to reporting outcomes and peer review. This is a working, principles-based definition rather than a closed list of banned acts, and it is deliberately broader than the US Office of Research Integrity’s fabrication-falsification-plagiarism (FFP) standard.

In UKRIO’s own words: research misconduct is “behaviours that deliberately or recklessly fall short of the standards expected in the conduct of research.” That single sentence, not a statute, is the operative UK working definition research offices build their procedures around.

• What is UKRIO’s working definition of research misconduct?
• Which behaviours does UKRIO’s definition capture?
• How does UKRIO’s definition compare with ORI and UKRI?
• Where does UKRIO’s definition deliberately stay vague?
• What does this mean for UK research offices?
• Common questions about research misconduct

What is UKRIO’s working definition of research misconduct?

UKRIO does not create a statutory definition of research misconduct. It adopts the definition set out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, published by Universities UK in 2019, under Commitment 4 and Annex A. UKRIO’s own guidance and its model Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (Version 2, March 2023) state explicitly that the definition used throughout is “taken from the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.”

The Concordat-derived definition requires two elements: a departure from expected standards, and either intent or recklessness behind it. UKRIO describes the boundary as “a spectrum rather than a hard and fast line” — a deliberate design choice that keeps the definition workable across every discipline UK research offices oversee, from clinical trials to computational modelling.

Which behaviours does UKRIO’s definition capture?

UKRIO’s published guidance lists specific behaviours that fall within its working definition. These are illustrative, not exhaustive, but they anchor most institutional investigations:

• Fabrication — making up data, results, or other research information such as patient consent.
• Falsification — manipulating or selecting processes, materials, equipment, or data to present a false impression or outcome.
• Plagiarism — using others’ ideas, intellectual property, or work without permission or acknowledgement.
• Misrepresenting data or other information in proposing, performing, or reporting research.
• Breaching legal, ethical, or professional requirements — for example proceeding without the necessary ethics approval or informed consent for human participants, animals, or human tissue.
• Proceeding without necessary permissions or approvals being in place.
• Failing to declare or manage conflicts of interest appropriately.

Because the definition covers “all stages in the research cycle,” it extends beyond data collection into peer review conduct and reporting — a scope UK research offices sometimes overlook when they draft misconduct policies focused narrowly on data integrity.

How does UKRIO’s definition compare with ORI and UKRI Research England?

Three UK/US frameworks use visibly different formulations, and the differences matter for cross-border collaborations and grant compliance:

ORI’s PHS-scoped FFP standard is the narrowest of the three because it is a statutory list tied to federal funding. UKRI’s funder-condition definition sits in the middle: it names FFP explicitly but adds an open “serious deviations” clause. UKRIO’s Concordat-based definition is the broadest of the three, because it is anchored to a standard of expected behaviour rather than to a closed list of acts — which is precisely why UK research offices need their own institutional Code of Practice to give it operational teeth.

Where does UKRIO’s definition deliberately stay vague?

UKRIO’s definition leaves at least three things unsettled by design, and understanding why matters as much as knowing the wording.

First, UKRIO does not itself specify what “the standards expected” are. It states that these standards “are those that your organisation will normally have put in place either in a Code of Practice for research or research handbook” — pushing the substantive content of the definition down to each institution, funder, or learned society.

Second, the Concordat draws a case-by-case line between research misconduct and questionable research practice (QRP), defined in Annex A (page 13) as “minor infractions or research practices, including avoidable errors, which fall short of the definition of intentional research misconduct.” Genuine errors and reasonable methodological disagreement, however strongly disputed, sit outside the misconduct definition entirely — but distinguishing an “avoidable error” from “reckless” conduct is a judgement made on the facts of each case, not a bright-line test.

Third, UKRIO frames misconduct as “a spectrum rather than a hard and fast line,” which is workable across disciplines precisely because it resists codification into a fixed act list — the trade-off UK research offices absorb in exchange for that flexibility.

What does this mean for UK research offices?

Because UKRIO’s definition is principles-based rather than a closed statute, UK research offices carry three practical obligations. They must maintain their own Code of Practice for Research (or equivalent) that states, in terms specific to their disciplines, what “standards expected” means locally — the Concordat requires this under Commitment 4. They must document any departure between their institutional definition and the Concordat wording, since an open definition raises dispute risk if a respondent argues the standard applied was undefined or inconsistently applied. And investigation panels must still make a fact-specific finding on intent or recklessness for every allegation, rather than concluding misconduct from a poor outcome alone.

UKRIO’s model Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research operationalises this: it imports the Concordat definition verbatim and sets out common features most UK institutional procedures share — an initial assessment, a panel investigation with external academic input, a written report, and an appeal stage. The definition and the procedure are designed to work together, not as separate standards.

As UK research integrity oversight matures — with more institutions publishing named-officer processes and more funders cross-referencing the Concordat in grant conditions — the vagueness UKRIO deliberately preserves in the definition is likely to remain the deliberate trade-off for a system built on institutional self-regulation rather than statutory command.

Common questions about research misconduct

What are the three types of research misconduct?

The three internationally recognised core acts are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) — the categories used by the US ORI. UKRIO recognises these same three acts as core examples but extends its working definition beyond them to cover ethics breaches, undeclared conflicts of interest, and unauthorised research activity.

What is an example of research misconduct?

A researcher inventing patient consent records, or manipulating raw data to produce a more favourable result, are both clear examples. Under UKRIO’s definition, proceeding with a human-participant study without the required ethical approval also counts as misconduct, even without fabricated data.

What is research misconduct in the UK?

In the UK, most institutions and funders anchor their definition to the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (Universities UK, 2019), which UKRIO also adopts. UKRI’s grant conditions separately define misconduct as FFP “or other serious deviations from commonly accepted practices.”

What counts as research misconduct?

Under UKRIO’s definition, conduct counts as misconduct only where it involves intent or recklessness and falls short of the standards an institution’s Code of Practice sets out. Genuine errors and honest methodological disagreements are explicitly excluded, however serious their consequences.

For related standards work on contributor accountability and research governance, see CASRAI’s research administration resources and research integrity dictionary terms.