An good apology needs to demonstrate an understanding of why what was done was wrong and ideally includes concrete steps that will prevent anything similar from happening again.

You seem to be implying that one apology is as good as another and that is absolutely not true. To me is is absolutely unfair to expect that people will treat a zero effort "sorry your feelings were hurt" apology the same as a deeply heartfelt apology by someone who feels deep remorse.

By it's nature, an apology should be an act of making amends to a person your have wronged. If the words of your apology don't do that, you have failed, even if you had good intentions.

If the author of the apology isn't a native speaker of english, this seems like a document of sufficient significance to merit asking a friend or colleague for a proofread. (Which you should do in a case like this even if English is your first language.)

Yep, it's called accountability. Would you prefer people acted without regard for others knowing that magic words can be spoken after the damage is done?

I would prefer you not go around saying someone is "apologizing wrong" because you've found the magic formula to turn all apology text into "I'm sorry you feel bad". There's no point in making a statement like that the original person can't respond to, anyway.

I get what you're saying and I don't want that that either. But I also don't think a simple apology that doesn't attempt to justify one's actions can be so easily flipped.

The researchers can no longer be trusted at all. The apology should have come from the University ethics board.