Sector News

Nature: two articles on research integrity and misconduct (subscription required)

Tie funding to research integrity: "A change in institutional culture is needed to promote responsible scientific behaviour and prevent misconduct. That's unlikely to happen unless money is involved"

Peers nip misconduct in the bud: "A new survey shows that informal intervention can often avert much irresponsible scientific behaviour, and is not as risky as people fear".

A subscription to Nature is required to access the full text of these articles.

Research Information Network: Government and research policy in the UK - an introduction

This new guide from the Research Information Network describes the nature, roles and responsibilities of the different Government bodies involved in research policy and funding, as well as the relationships between them. It includes information on the UK Government and those of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The ARRIVE guidelines: new guidelines for reporting of animal studies

The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines have been developed by the NC3Rs to improve standards of reporting and ensure that the data from animal experiments can be fully evaluated and utilised. The document is primarily aimed at researchers writing up their research for publication or involved in peer review and consists of a 20-point checklist of the essential information that should be included in publications reporting animal research.

PLoS Biology has commented on the new guidance.

National Research Ethics Service: Data Monitoring Committees in Clinical Trials

NRES has issued new guidance on Data Monitoring Committees in Clinical Trials. The publication sets out the responsibilities for oversight of safety issues in clinical trails, the circumstances in which an independent Data Monitoring Committee may be required and the role it should play

British Medical Association: Standing up for doctors, speaking out for patients

BMA Scotland has published the conclusions of an online survey to assess the views and experience of a sample of its hospital-based members of raising concerns within their workplace and what support and confidence they perceive there to be for doctors who attempt to "blow the whistle".

Nature: Under Suspicion

An editorial explaining how Nature investigates allegations of fraud and misconduct concerning its articles. The editorial rightly urges readers and reviewers to report any concerns about articles, data or images to the relevant editors.

The Scientist: Fraud - who is responsible? (free registration required)

An opinion piece on scientific fraud by Jeffrey Blaustein, Editor-in-Chief of Endocrinology.

Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

Recently published on PLoS ONE, a study by  Dr Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh exploring how the "publish or perish" culture can affect the accuracy and impartiality of research. A fascinating study from the author of the first meta-analysis and systematic review of surveys on misconduct in research (which can be found here).

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (subscription required)

The JRSM has published an editorial and the first article in a six-part series examining the investigation of alleged research misconduct relating to the CNEP trial (a randomised Comparison of Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure). As JRSM states, "[a]fter 11 years of accusations, investigations and inquiries - and £6 million in costs - the GMC [General Medical Council] concluded that there was no case for the researchers to answer in respect of the CNEP trial."

While the editorial and initial article unfortunately contain errors concerning UKRIO, they are fascinating reading nonetheless.

Our letter of correction can be found here and we understand it will be published in due course. We are grateful to JRSM for allowing us to set the record straight.

        Regulating Research, Regulating Professionals

        Mis-investigating alleged research misconduct can have dire consequences

UKRIO was not involved in any of the events described. In our Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (see here), we state that it is essential that any allegations of research misconduct are investigated by a transparent process that is objective, thorough, and fair to all concerned. Our guidance also states that persons who raise concerns in good faith should not be penalised; instead they should be supported, as should persons accused of research misconduct but who are later exonerated.

Times Higher Education: review of "On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary tales from the Front Lines of Science"

Professor Michael Farthing, Vice-Chair of UKRIO, reviews David Goodstein's book on research fraud for THE.

Times Higher Education: Do The Right Thing - Unite

An interesting article on research ethics in the social sciences. The subject was also debated in the letters pages of the THE in later issues.

Committee on Publication Ethics: How to handle authorship disputes - a guide for new researchers

UKRIO would like to draw attention to guidance produced for new researchers by the Committee on Publication Ethics to help prevent and resolve authorship disputes.

The guidance suggests good practice that should reduce the incidence of authorship problems, provides advice on what to do if such problems do occur and contains a glossary of key concepts in authorship, along with suggestions for further reading and web-based resources. Click here to see the guidance

BioMed Central: Guidance on Duplicate/ Redundant Publication

BiomMed Central has published guidance for authors and editors on duplicate publication. The publication includes very useful guidance on what is -and what is not- viewed as duplicate/ redundant/ overlapping publication. Click here to see the guidance

International Society for Medical Publication Professionals: new edition of Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company Sponsored Medical Research

The ISMPP has published an updated version of its guidance for communicating medical research sponsored by companies, produced after a lengthy international consultation process. The guidance makes recommendations "that will help individuals and organisations maintain ethical practices and comply with current requirements when they contribute to the communication of medical research sponsored by companies." Click here to see the guidance

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals

The ICMJE has introduced new standard requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest for authors of articles submitted to ICMJE member journals.

A copy of the new disclosure form can be found here and a completed sample form can be found here.

Nature: Science journals crack down on image manipulation

More science journals are taking action to tackle the growing problem of falsified and manipulated images in papers submitted to them for publication.

A subscription to Nature is required to access the full text of this article.

Publication of UKRIO's Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct

UKRIO today launches its Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct.

The Code addresses long-standing concerns in the research community about research misconduct and questionable practices. The UK has a world-class reputation for conducting exceptional and innovative research and for producing researchers of the highest calibre.

UKRIO has now produced the Code of Practice for Research, a reference tool to support researchers and research organisations in the conduct of research of the highest quality. The Code can help research organisations ensure that important issues have not been overlooked and applies to all types of research.

Drawing upon UKRIO's experiences in addressing good conduct and misconduct in research, the Code provides principles and standards for researchers and research organisations and also includes a Recommended Checklist for Researchers: a one-page, non-technical checklist for the key points of good practice in research, based on the more detailed standards provided by the Code.

Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, Chair of the Board of UKRIO said: "UKRIO is increasingly providing support to universities and NHS Trusts who recognise that research misconduct and questionable practices can tarnish the UK's well-earned reputation as a centre of excellence in research. The Code is a vital part of our continuing work to encourage good conduct in research and to help to prevent misconduct, setting out the responsibilities and values critical to research, as well as providing practical guidance for researchers and their employers."

Professor Dame Sally C. Davies, Director-General of Research and Development at the Department of Health said: "I am delighted to see the UK Research Integrity Office continuing to deliver tools that enable researchers and their employers to maintain this country's international reputation in research and innovation. We rely on excellent, sound research to improve health and healthcare for patients and their families."

Individuals and organisations who would like to receive a hard copy of the Code should contact UKRIO.

The Code and a separate version of the Recommended Checklist are also available as PDFs:

UKRIO Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct (567KB)

Recommended Checklist for Researchers (25KB)

Press release: UKRIO Code of Practice for Research press release 01 10 09.pdf

For more information, please visit our page on the Code of Practice for Research.

UKRIO welcomes feedback on the Code. A web-based version of the Code, including a mechanism for the research community to submit feedback on specific sections and suggest new developments in good practice in research for inclusion, will be published on this site shortly.

Higher Education Funding Council for England: Major consultation on the new Research Excellence Framework published

The Higher Education Funding Council for England has published a consultation on the Research Excellence Framework.

The consultation is on behalf of the four UK higher education funding councils and is aimed at: heads of higher education institutions funded by HEFCE, HEFCW or the SFC; heads of universities in Northern Ireland; and organisations with an interest in commissioning and using academic research including businesses, public sector bodies, charities and other third sector organisations.

The closing date for responses to the consultation is Wednesday 16th December 2009.

Research Information Network: Communicating knowledge - how and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings

A new report published by the Research Information Network and JISC examines how and why researchers publish, including the motivations that lead them to publish in different formats and the increase in collaboration and co-authorship. It also explores how researchers decide what to cite and the influence of research assessment on their behaviours and studies. the report shows how researchers are concerned by what they perceive as mixed messages about the channels they should use to communicate their research findings.

Sense About Science: Peer Review Survey 2009 - preliminary findings

Sense About Science has released the preliminary findings of its Peer Review Survey 2009, an electronic survey on what researchers think about peer review and its future. The survey was conducted from 28th July to 11th August 2009 and 4,037 researchers completed the questionnaire. The full findings of the survey are due to be published in November 2009; this article contains the preliminary findings and comments on them from some editors and publishers.

Journal of the American Medical Association: Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials

A study of 323 randomised controlled trials shows that there appears to be some discrepancies between the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles. The authors state that "although trial registration is now the rule, careful implementation of trial registration, with full involvement of authors, editors, and reviewers is necessary to ensure publication of quality, unbiased results."

A subscription to JAMA is required to access the full text of this article. The study has also received coverage here and here (no subscription required).

Times Higher Education: 'Publish or perish' factor in spiralling retractions

The rate at which scientific journal articles are being retracted has increased roughly tenfold over the last two decades, an exclusive analysis for Times Higher Education reveals. The article also covers a forthcoming study to be presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review which examines more than 300 cases of retractions in the PubMed database and the reasons for them. UKRIO's Code of Practice for Research is also discussed.

Telegraph: Give scientists the freedom to be wrong

Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society: let us remember that our exploration of nature's secrets is only just beginning. An excellent and fascinating article.

Research Councils UK: Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct

The final version of Research Councils UK's Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct  is now available from the RCUK website. The Policy sets out standards for the conduct and management of research funded by RCUK and from 1st October 2009 will be a requirement of all grants and awards from the Research Councils. Further information is given in a letter from Professor Ian Diamond, the Chair of RCUK, at the end of the publication. Researchers and organisations can find more information on the Policy here or by contacting info@rcuk.ac.uk.

Organisations who plan to revise their guidance on research conduct in light of the new RCUK Policy may find it useful to refer to the reference tool created by UKRIO to help them in such a situation, our Code of Practice for Research.

Times Higher Education: Paper chase

The Times Higher Education explores whether academic journals might pose a threat to the advancement of science in this article.

Launch of PDF version of UKRIO's Code of Practice for Research: promoting good practice and preventing misconduct

UKRIO's Code of Practice for Research, revised following a public consultation on a draft version earlier this year, is now available in PDF form. The Code has been produced as part of UKRIO's continuing work to support researchers and research organisations in the promotion of good practice in research and the conduct of research of the highest quality.

The Code has been revised following the valuable feedback given during the consultation. Particular attention has been paid to those areas of the Code which were considered by some to be unclear or excessively prescriptive.

The Code is applicable to all subject areas and does not attempt to micro-manage research. It covers areas of good practice typically included in organisational policies for the conduct of research, drawing upon existing good practice and the experiences of UKRIO in addressing good conduct and misconduct in research. Additional consideration has been given to areas where UKRIO has most often been approached for guidance, in the hope of passing on lessons learned to the research community.

It provides general principles and standards for good practice in research, applicable to both researchers and research organisations. It also includes a one-page Recommended Checklist for Researchers: a non-technical checklist summarising the key points of good practice in research, based upon the more detailed standards provided in the Code. A separate PDF of the Checklist  is available here.

We appreciate that there are many sources of guidance on the conduct of research. Our intent is that research organisations can use the principles and standards outlined as benchmarks when drafting or revising their own, more detailed, codes of practice. Use of the benchmarks contained in the Code can assist research organisations in fulfilling the requirements of regulatory, funding and other relevant bodies and ensure that important issues have not been overlooked.

In short, the Code is a reference tool that complements existing and forthcoming guidance on research conduct, such as that provided by Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust and the Council for Science and Technology, and does not seek to replace them.

The revised Code is now in production and hard copies will be circulated to the research community in September. In the interim, a PDF version of the Code is available here:

Code of Practice for Research - promoting good practice and preventing misconduct

The one-page PDF of the Recommended Checklist for Researchers is available here.

UKRIO welcomes feedback on the Code of Practice for Research. A web-based version of the Code, including a mechanism for the research community to submit feedback on specific sections and suggest new developments in good practice in research for inclusion, will be published on this site shortly.

Individuals and organisations who would like to receive a hard copy of the Code should contact UKRIO here.

The Scientist: Life after fraud

An interview with three researchers who were found guilty of research misconduct by the US Office of Research Integrity. The article explores the experiences of the researchers and the short- and long-term effects of being found to have committed misconduct.

Summary analysis of the consultation on UKRIO's draft Code of Practice for Research

Earlier this year, we consulted the research community on a draft version of the Code of Practice for Research. Over one hundred submissions were received, the vast majority of which were positive. We appreciate that the respondents considered the questions that we had asked, and wider issues of good practice in research, so thoroughly.

Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, the Chair of UKRIO, wrote to respondents on 27th July to thank them for their very helpful comments and inform them of UKRIO's response. A copy of the letter is available here.

A summary of the analysis of the responses to the consultation o UKRIO's draft Code of Practice for Research is available here.

UKRIO would like to thank the individuals and organisations who participated in the consultation for their contribution to the development of the Code.

First meta-analysis of surveys on misconduct in research

The research community has long been concerned about misconduct in research, which can have wide-ranging and damaging consequences. UKRIO welcomes the publication by Dr Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh of the first meta-analysis of surveys on misconduct in research.

The meta-analysis, which has generated considerable interest in the academic and mainstream media, is available free of charge at PLoS ONE here.

The UK rightly has a world-class reputation for conducting exceptional and innovative research and for producing researchers of the highest calibre. UKRIO is increasingly providing support to universities and NHS Trusts who recognise that misconduct and questionable practices in research can tarnish the UK's well-earned reputation as a centre of excellence in research. The work carried out by Dr Fanelli is invaluable and we look forward to further research taking place on this subject.

Research Integrity Training

UKRIO has been working with King's College London to provide training in implementing the Procedure and fostering good practice in research.

The two-day courses feature speakers from universities who have responsibility for fostering good practice in research and investigating misconduct in research and also representatives from UKRIO. Training includes a variety of case studies, practitioners relating their own experiences, and opportunities for delegates to share experiences and consider how research integrity is best supported in different contexts.

Courses for the current academic year have now concluded but further courses are planned for 2010. For further information, contact UKRIO.

Update: feedback sought on UKRIO's Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research

In September 2008, UKRIO launched its standard Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research. The Procedure is designed to ensure that investigations of alleged research misconduct are carried out thoroughly and fairly. It works with existing institutional processes such as disciplinary and grievance procedures and does not replace them.

Since its launch, the Procedure has been used by universities and NHS Trusts to investigate allegations of research misconduct, which can have serious and wide-ranging implications if not addressed properly. Research organisations can adopt the Procedure for use when investigating allegations of misconduct in research or use it as a reference tool when revising their existing processes to address misconduct. UKRIO is happy to provide advice and assistance to institutions on the adoption and use of the Procedure and on the general revision of polices and systems to address misconduct.

Further details on the Procedure can be found here and a PDF version of the publication can be downloaded here.

UKRIO would welcome feedback on the Procedure, its adoption by research organisations and its use in investigating allegations of misconduct. Details on how to contact us can be found here.