Research operations
Research Governance and Ethics-Process Support
Help researchers and administrators understand how institutional research decisions are made and what information those decisions require. Research governance support can clarify responsibilities, approval routes, documentation and escalation across the research lifecycle. Outlier Science can help develop practical processes for institutional review, with ethics decisions and formal authority retained by the appropriate bodies.
The scope is process design and support. It is useful when researchers receive inconsistent guidance, administrative handovers are unclear or policies exist without a workable route for applying them.
On this page 7 sections
01
Identify the decisions and the people authorised to make them
Research governance involves several types of decision that should not be confused. Scientific approval, ethics review, access to data, budget authority and permission to enter an agreement may sit with different people or bodies. A process review can identify those responsibilities and the points where they connect.
The work can map the stages of a project, from concept and approvals through changes, reporting and closure. For each stage, the institution can identify the required information, responsible role, decision authority and record. This makes it easier to explain what must happen before research progresses.
Existing policies and local requirements remain the starting point. The ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity is a useful cross-disciplinary framework, but an external framework does not replace the institution’s applicable rules or approval responsibilities.
Where the wider support structure is unclear, research-office development can help define how governance administration connects with other services.
02
Improve the administration around ethics review
Ethics-process support can examine how researchers identify the correct route, obtain current forms, prepare a complete submission and respond to administrative queries. Clear guidance can explain where to ask questions and which matters need a committee or authorised specialist decision.
The distinction between administrative completeness and ethical acceptability must remain visible. An administrator can check whether required documents are present under an approved checklist; that does not mean the research has been ethically approved. The workflow should make the status of the submission unambiguous.
The review can also address document versions, reviewer allocation procedures, declared conflicts, decision records and communication with applicants. Depending on the institutional remit, amendments, continuing obligations and closure records may need defined processes of their own.
Templates can support consistency without pre-judging substantive decisions. A query letter can identify missing information clearly, while a record can show who made the decision and which project version it concerned. Any new procedure must be approved through the institution’s appropriate route.
03
Connect governance with everyday research work
Governance procedures should be usable by researchers who are planning and conducting real studies. The work can examine whether instructions match the actual sequence of project development and whether staff know when a change needs to be referred for review.
Data management, collaboration and publication also involve responsibilities that should be discussed early. A project may need to establish access conditions, contribution arrangements or a process for correcting records. The institution should identify the relevant owner instead of asking one committee to resolve every type of issue.
Training and guidance can use realistic scenarios. For example, a project team may change its data source or add a collaborating organisation. The exercise should help participants identify the question to raise and the authorised route, rather than supply a universal answer detached from local requirements.
Detailed process documents can be developed through research SOP support, while project-level data planning can connect to research data management.
04
Illustrative deliverable: a governance decision register
The following structure is an example for adaptation. It is not an approved procedure or a statement of legal requirements for a particular country.
Decision area | Process information to record |
|---|---|
Project initiation | Institutional owner and the route for recording the proposed work |
Ethics review | Relevant review body, required documents and submission status |
Data access | Authorised data owner and conditions that need confirmation |
Collaboration | Responsible institutional contacts and agreements requiring review |
Project change | Trigger for seeking advice and the authority deciding the next step |
Closure | Required records, unresolved obligations and responsible custodian |
A completed register would state where each requirement comes from and which institutional role can confirm its interpretation. It can also record an unresolved question without allowing it to disappear into a general project note.
For an illustrative project adding a new data source, the register would direct the team to check the relevant access and review conditions before treating the original approval as sufficient. The outcome depends on the actual project and applicable rules; the value of the process is that the decision reaches the appropriate authority.
05
Process, deliverables and scope
An engagement can begin with document review and discussions with governance owners, administrators and researchers. The assessment identifies inconsistencies, unclear handovers and missing records. Draft improvements can then be reviewed by the people authorised to approve them.
Possible outputs include a governance map, responsibility matrix, revised administrative guidance, document templates, an issue register and a phased adoption plan. A scenario test can show whether users can find the right route and distinguish advice from approval.
Useful inputs include current policies, committee terms of reference, forms, approved procedures and anonymised examples of recurring administrative problems. Sensitive case material should be limited to what is necessary and shared only through an agreed process.
Scope and cost depend on the number of governance areas, institutional units and existing documents, along with the need for qualified local review. The service does not provide institutional ethics approval, legal advice, an investigation finding or regulatory certification. Those activities require the appropriate independent authority and expertise.
06
Questions about research governance support
Can you approve a study on behalf of our ethics committee?
No. Approval belongs to the committee or other body authorised under the applicable arrangements. The service can support the administrative process, clarify requirements and prepare materials for review, without substituting for the decision-maker.
Can you help researchers prepare ethics documents?
Document preparation and clarity support can be considered within a defined scope. Researchers must provide accurate project information, and substantive questions should go to the relevant institutional or specialist authority. Support does not guarantee approval.
Can one procedure work across several campuses?
A common process may be possible where authority and requirements are shared. Differences should be identified and documented. The institution needs to confirm where local review routes or other requirements must remain distinct.
What if a project has already started without a required decision?
The issue should be raised promptly with the appropriate institutional authority. The service does not promise retrospective approval or provide documents intended to conceal what happened. Any process support should preserve an accurate record and follow the authorised response.
Can the work include research-integrity training?
Yes, a defined training component can explain responsibilities, referral routes and practical scenarios. Content should match the institution’s policies and participant roles. Attendance is not a professional certification or a replacement for project-specific review.
07
Discuss a governance process that needs attention
Describe the process, the people involved and the point at which responsibilities become unclear. This provides a useful basis for a focused discussion without sending confidential case files through the initial inquiry form.