In brief

  • Every research organisation in Romania is given the same framework regulation for its ethics committee: a four-year term, between 3 and 7 members, an odd number, with nobody holding a management position among them.
  • Anonymous complaints are not considered, but the identity of the person who signs stays confidential and the incoming register is filled in with „anonymous”. Breaching that confidentiality is a disciplinary offence.
  • The analysis committee has 60 days to deliver its report, the ethics committee another 30 to approve it, and the decision is published on the organisation’s website and stays there for at least 2 years.
Act: MEC Order no. 4.665/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 704 of 25 August 2026
In force from: 25 August 2026

A researcher accused of plagiarism or of falsifying data will from now on be judged by the same rules, whatever institute they work in: the Minister of Education and Research has approved a single framework regulation for the ethics committees of research organisations. Order no. 4.665/2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 704 of 25 August 2026, sets out who may sit on the committee, how a complaint is filed, what time limits the procedure runs to and when the decision becomes public. The act continues the run of reorganisations in research, after the restructuring of the National Research Authority, the institution that carries this order into effect together with the National Council of Ethics in Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation.

Until now, every institute or university with research activity wrote its own rules on how its ethics committee works, within the general limits of Law no. 183/2024 on the status of research, development and innovation staff. The framework regulation does not abolish those in-house rules, but it puts a common pattern under them that nobody may depart from.

The practical deadline to remember is 60 days from entry into force. Within that period, every research organisation has to draw up its own regulation on the organisation and functioning of its ethics committee and publish it on its website.

What it changes in practice

The first effect concerns membership. The ethics committee has an odd number of members, at least 3 and at most 7, all of them people of professional standing. Its leadership and its membership are proposed by the scientific council and approved by a decision of the organisation’s management.

The second effect is a list of incompatibilities. The director general, the director, their deputies, the scientific director or scientific secretary, the branch director, the chair of the scientific council, the administrative director general, his deputy and the department director may not be members. Neither may anyone who has themselves breached the standards of good conduct. Anyone who falls into incompatibility has 15 working days to choose between the two positions.

The third effect is independence stated in terms. The committees act independently of any other structure or person inside the organisation and approve their own procedures by a decision of the scientific council.

The fourth effect concerns complaints. Any person may complain to the committee, in writing or online, with registration at the registry office. The complaint has to contain, cumulatively, a signature, the identification details of its author and reasoned grounds, with concrete examples and documentary sources. Without all three, the complaint is rejected as inadmissible, with reasons given, within 5 working days, and its author is free to start again.

The fifth effect is protection for the person who complains. Their identity is kept confidential and, in the incoming register, the „depositor/petitioner” column is filled in with „anonymous”. Failure to observe that confidentiality is a disciplinary offence. Complaints and reports that are anonymous in the strict sense, without a signature and identification details, are not considered.

The sixth effect is the timetable. The committee meets within 5 days of a complaint being registered at the latest. The analysis committee rules by way of a report within 60 calendar days of receiving the complaint, and the ethics committee approves that report by decision within 30 days of receiving it. The time limits are suspended while views or documents are awaited from the parties, and they do not carry forfeiture.

The seventh effect is publicity. The decision is communicated in writing to the author of the complaint and to the person complained against, and is published on the organisation’s website within 10 calendar days of becoming final, with the complainant anonymised. The report stays on the website for at least 2 years, or for as long as the longest of the penalties imposed.

The eighth effect concerns the right of defence. The person complained against may see the full content of the file, against signature, may ask for or submit further documents and may propose witnesses. Failure to attend a summons without justification does not block the procedure, and the committee may carry on with its analysis.

The ninth effect is the appeal. A report approved by decision may be challenged within 20 working days of communication before the National Council of Ethics in Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation, both by the person found at fault and by the author of the complaint. If no challenge is brought, the penalties are enforced by the head of the organisation within 60 calendar days of the report being communicated.

The tenth effect is an exception on jurisdiction. Complaints aimed at staff in management positions, at members of boards of administration, of executive committees, of scientific councils or of ethics committees, or at people holding public dignity offices, are examined by the National Council of Ethics itself, not by the organisation’s committee.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The first change is that a common pattern now exists. Law no. 183/2024 set out the powers of ethics committees and the penalties, but the practical organisation was left to each body. From now on, the in-house regulation is written on top of a framework that is identical for everyone.

The second change is the admissibility condition spelled out. The three cumulative elements, signature, identification details and reasoned grounds with examples and sources, turn the admissibility check into an objective verification rather than a matter of judgement.

The third change is the duty to anonymise on publication. The decision becomes public, the name of the person who complained does not.

The fourth change is that impartiality is now formalised. Members of the analysis committee sign a declaration on their own responsibility as to their impartiality and a confidentiality declaration, both on the templates printed in Annexes nos. 1 and 2 to the regulation, within 5 working days of being appointed at the latest.

The fifth change is the ban on commenting on a case. Nobody involved, from the members of the committee to the witnesses and the management of the organisation, may voice an opinion, in public or inside the institution, on the guilt of the person under investigation before the final resolution.

The sixth change is the standard form of the report and of the decision. Annexes nos. 3 and 4 give the exact structure: a summary of the complaint, the check on jurisdiction, the legal basis, the documents examined, the analysis, the findings of fact and of law, the measures and the outcome of the vote.

The seventh change is that online meetings are recognised. Meetings may be held with members physically present, online or in hybrid format, and a recording may be made only with the agreement of all participants.

What does not change are the penalties. They remain those in Article 63 of Law no. 183/2024 and are enforced by a decision of the head of the research organisation.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • A researcher knows in advance what time limits the procedure runs to and what rights of defence are granted, whatever institute they work in.
  • Keeping management positions out of the ethics committee takes hierarchical pressure off an internal investigation.
  • The identity of the person who complains is protected in terms, and breaching that protection is itself a disciplinary offence.
  • Decisions are published, so the practice of these committees becomes verifiable from outside the institution.
  • Complaints against the management go straight to the National Council of Ethics, not to a committee that answers to the person complained against.
  • The standard templates in the annexes spare committees from improvising their own procedure.

What remains a problem

  • The time limits do not carry forfeiture and are suspended while documents are awaited, so a procedure can run well beyond the 90 days they add up to.
  • Anonymous complaints are not considered, which leaves out warnings from people who fear reprisals.
  • The quorum and the working procedure are still left to each organisation, so they can differ a good deal from one institute to another.
  • The regulation lays down no penalty for an organisation that fails to publish its own rules within the 60 days.
  • Attendance at hearings is compulsory for witnesses too, and failure to attend without justification can be treated as a disciplinary offence.
  • Legal liability for the committee’s decisions rests with the research organisation, not with the members who adopt them.

Practical advice

  1. If you work in a research organisation, watch the institution’s website over the next 60 days. That is where its own ethics committee regulation, the decision on membership and the way a complaint is filed have to appear.
  2. When you draft a complaint, include all three elements required: your signature, full identification details and reasoned grounds with concrete examples and sources. Missing any one of them means rejection as inadmissible.
  3. Keep the registration number of the complaint. It is sent to the contact address you gave and it is the point from which the time limits run.
  4. If you are the person complained against, ask in writing for access to the whole file. That is a right stated in terms, and disclosure is made against signature.
  5. If you suspect a conflict of interest involving a member of the analysis committee, ask in writing for that member to be removed. The committee decides by vote, without the member concerned.
  6. An appeal to the National Council of Ethics has to be lodged within 20 working days of communication. Once that period runs out, the penalties are enforced.
  7. If the complaint concerns a director, a member of the board of administration or of the scientific council, send it straight to the National Council of Ethics. The organisation’s committee has no jurisdiction in those cases.

Frequently asked questions

Can I complain to an ethics committee if I do not work in that organisation?
Yes. The regulation says that any person may complain to the ethics committee of a research organisation about an act that may amount to a breach of the standards of good conduct.
Does my complaint stay confidential?
The identity of the author of a complaint is kept confidential and the incoming register is filled in with „anonymous”. The complaint does have to be signed and to carry your identification details, though, otherwise it is inadmissible.
How long does the procedure take?
The analysis committee rules within 60 calendar days of receiving the complaint, and the ethics committee approves the report within 30 days of receiving it. The time limits are suspended while documents are awaited from the parties.
What do I do if I am not satisfied with the report?
You can challenge it within 20 working days of communication before the National Council of Ethics in Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation. Both the person found at fault and the author of the complaint have that right.
Where can I see the committee’s decisions?
On the research organisation’s website. They are published within 10 calendar days of becoming final, with the author of the complaint anonymised, and stay there for at least 2 years.
Who cannot sit on an ethics committee?
Directors general and their deputies, directors, the scientific director or scientific secretary, the branch director, the chair of the scientific council, the administrative director general and his deputy, the department director, as well as anyone who has themselves breached the standards of good conduct.
Can a meeting be held online?
Yes. Meetings may be held with the members physically present, online or in hybrid format. A recording may be made only with the consent of all participants.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Article 12(6) attributes the reasoning of the report to the wrong body. The text requires the report to contain „considerentele pentru care comisia de etică a înlăturat argumentele formulate de autorul sesizării”, the grounds on which the ethics committee dismissed the arguments put forward by the author of the complaint. The report is drawn up and adopted by the analysis committee, however, under Article 10(8) and Article 12(2), and the ethics committee comes in only afterwards, through the decision approving or rejecting it provided for in Article 12(7). The correct wording would be „comisia de analiză”, the analysis committee.
  • Article 9(4) sets a ceiling lower than the minimum threshold. The report stays on the website „pe o durată maximă egală cu durata cea mai mare a sancțiunilor adoptate, dar nu mai puțin de 2 ani”, for a maximum period equal to the longest of the penalties imposed, but not less than 2 years. Where the penalty imposed has no duration, or one shorter than two years, the ceiling falls below the minimum stated in the same sentence, and where the report is one of rejection, in the sense of Article 10(8), there is no penalty at all from which to work the ceiling out, yet the obligation of two years remains.
  • Annex no. 3, point 2.1, speaks of an appeal instead of a complaint. The model report ends with the words „membrii comisiei de analiză au procedat la analiza documentelor primite în cadrul contestației”, the members of the analysis committee proceeded to examine the documents received in the appeal, although the whole model deals with the settlement of a complaint. An appeal does not reach the analysis committee at all, it goes to CNECSDTI, under Article 9(6).
  • Article 2(3) and Article 14(1) give the same document two different authors. In the first, the ethics committees „își elaborează regulamentul de organizare și funcționare propriu”, draw up their own regulation on organisation and functioning, approved by decision of the scientific council. In the second, „organizațiile de cercetare elaborează propriul regulament de organizare și funcționare a comisiilor de etică”, the research organisations draw up their own regulation on the organisation and functioning of the ethics committees, published on the website, with no mention of any approval. The two paragraphs cannot both be applied at the same time.
  • Article 12(4) assumes guilt before the conclusion is reached. „Fiecare membru al comisiei de analiză propune una din sancțiunile prevăzute de legislația în vigoare”, each member of the analysis committee proposes one of the penalties provided for by the legislation in force, although Article 10(8) expressly provides for a report of rejection as well, and Annex no. 3, point 3, offers as one option „se respinge ca nefondată”, rejected as unfounded. In the same vein, Article 12(6) requires the report to contain „faptele care au condus la sancționarea persoanei vizate”, the facts that led to the person concerned being penalised, a formula that does not fit a report of rejection.

Editorial analysis

The real problem the order solves is one of procedural fairness. Law no. 183/2024 laid down the powers of the ethics committees and the penalties, but not the way either is arrived at, so two researchers accused of the same thing could go through procedures with nothing in common in two neighbouring institutes: different time limits, different rights of defence, different publicity for the outcome. The framework regulation closes that gap and brings in things that were missing almost everywhere, among them the right of the person complained against to see the whole file, against signature, and the exclusion of management positions from the committee, from director general down to department director, in the list in Article 3(3)(a).

The standardisation stops, however, exactly where it would matter most. Article 7(1) leaves the quorum and the working procedure to each organisation, and the committee may have between 3 and 7 members. The result is that the number of votes needed to establish a breach of the standards of good conduct stays a local variable, although all the rest of the procedure has been standardised. An act that fixes with precision 60 days for the report, 30 for the decision, 20 working days for the appeal and 5 working days for the declarations of impartiality has no reason to avoid the one figure that decides the fate of the file.

The second crack concerns the confidentiality of the person who complains. Article 8(3) guarantees it at the registry office, where the incoming register is filled in with „anonim”, anonymous, and Article 8(6) turns any breach of it into a disciplinary offence. Except that Article 11(1) gives the person complained against the right to see „conținutul integral al dosarului”, the entire content of the file, and the file starts with a complaint which, under Article 8(4), has to carry the signature and the identification details of its author. Anonymisation is expressly required only at publication, under Article 13(1). In an institute where the person signing is usually the subordinate of the person complained against, the difference between those two moments is everything.

Finally, the time limits are written as obligations but work as intentions. Article 9(2) says that they do not carry forfeiture, and paragraph (3) suspends them for as long as views or documents are awaited from the parties, with no limit on that waiting. The 60 plus 30 days can become any length at all, and the only consequence of exceeding them is that there is none. The same goes for the obligation in Article 14(1): every organisation has to publish its own regulation within 60 days, but nobody checks and nothing happens if it does not.

What should be changed

  • The quorum and the majority, written into the framework regulation. Article 7(1) ought to fix a single threshold, for instance the presence of two thirds of the members and the vote of a majority of the members in office. In practice, the same conduct would need the same support in committee, whether the institute chose a committee of 3 or of 7.
  • A limit on the suspension of the time limits. Article 9(3) ought to be completed with a maximum period in which a party may reply, 15 working days for instance, after which the procedure carries on with the documents available. In practice, a file could no longer stay open indefinitely because a letter is awaited that never comes.
  • Anonymisation at the point of access to the file, not only at publication. Article 11(1) ought to say expressly that the file is communicated to the person complained against with the identification details of the author of the complaint covered up, as Article 13(1) requires at the moment of publication. In practice, the protection promised at the registry office would hold until the end of the procedure, not only until the file is first consulted.
  • A route for reports that are documented but unsigned. Article 5(1)(b) already allows the committee to act on its own initiative. The regulation could provide that a report without identification details, but accompanied by evidence that can be checked, is passed to the ethics committee so that it may decide whether to act on its own initiative. In practice, a documented signal would no longer be lost because its author fears reprisals, without that opening the door to unsupported accusations.
  • A public register of compliance. The National Research Authority and CNECSDTI could keep a list of the links to the regulations published under Article 14(1) and to the decisions published under Article 13(1). In practice, it would be visible at a glance who kept to the 60 day deadline, and the actual practice of the committees could be compared across institutes.
  • The fate of a term of office already begun. Article 4(2) provides for a replacement to be appointed within 15 days, but does not say whether that person takes over the remainder of the four year term set in Article 2(2), nor what happens to the files under examination on the date of the replacement. In practice, it would be known whether an analysis already started begins again or carries on with the new membership.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 704 of 25 August 2026 8 pages PDF, 77 KB the act starts on page 3

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.