Destigmatising the search and correction of research errors

We all want research to give us reliable information. The problem is that research is not an infallible activity.

As UKRIO’s recent report Barriers to Investigating and Reporting Research Misconduct notes, issues within research can arise for any number of reasons – only one of which is intentional misconduct. While the research process attempts to be more reliable than other forms of generating knowledge, the simple truth is that it is still conducted by humans who inevitably make mistakes from time to time.

Destigmatising the search and correction of errors by acknowledging that mistakes can and do happen in research is therefore a vital part of improving the quality and integrity of that research. As part of UKRIO’s wider programme of work to support institutions in normalising reporting of concerns about research integrity, it published a discussion paper this week making the case for the use of neutral language in research misconduct investigations. In this paper, it proposes that institutions adopt terminology to shift the focus of investigations away from concerns about a person’s wrongdoing to concerns about whether research is robust.

This intervention, it argues, will encourage the reporting of errors and safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record by improving confidence in research misconduct investigations, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and normalising the raising of concerns. While this paper acknowledges that terminology changes alone will not prevent research misconduct, it suggests they will help emphasise what the purpose of research misconduct investigations should be: to protect the integrity and trustworthiness of the research in question.

In addition to normalising and improving reporting procedures, there is wider work to be done to prevent questionable research practices (QRPs) and misconduct from taking place in the first instance.

UKRIO is committed to helping the research community foster the cultures and environments necessary to do so. Essential to this endeavour is gaining a strong understanding of the conditions and factors that drive QPRs and misconduct.

One leading effort to achieve this is the Questionable Research Practices Survey, an initiative recently launched by the University of Portsmouth to collect information on the QRPs researchers and those involved in supporting and publishing research have experienced or observed in the last 12 months. By collecting this data, the survey seeks to gain insight into the spectrum and prevalence of QRPs that can occur, from honest mistakes on one extreme to criminal behaviour on the other.

While the survey remains ongoing, preliminary results show that QRPs are commonplace, with around one in four respondents reporting awareness of QRPs occurring in some form within their institution in the last 12 months. Though deliberate misbehaviours that typify ‘traditional’ research misconduct such as falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism were reported, it was more common for respondents to report observing unintentional mistakes. Revealingly, respondents most frequently blamed these unintentional mistakes on sloppiness and incompetence, marginally ahead of honest errors themselves. When asked what they believed the main reason for QRPs committed at their institution was, almost two in five respondents stated that it was to “get research published”.

Although these are early results from a relatively small sample worldwide (n=132, 60% from Europe, 20% from the US), they show that “publish or perish” culture is still very much alive in research. They also suggest that QRPs are more likely to be caused by high pressured environments than individual “bad apple” researchers, meaning interventions seeking to prevent QRPs must consider the cultural and systems-level issues at work.

The decision to assess higher education institutions on People, Culture, and Environment (PCE) in the upcoming Research Excellence Framework in 2029 reflects the growing recognition that such factors can and do influence research quality. While interventions at the institutional level are valuable, establishing a culture that fosters and drives research integrity will require a systems-level change involving collaboration between researchers, research employers, funders, and publishers on a national and global scale.

We must do far more to support researchers to be rigorous in how they conduct and report research to ensure sloppiness and incompetence do not escalate into more serious breaches in research integrity.

In doing so, we need to think about the structural drivers that could enable or incentivise QPRs and misconduct – the measurement of success through the currency of publication, for example.

This starts with understanding why and how QRPs arise. As a first step, we urge readers involved in research to take part in the University of Portsmouth Questionable Research Practices Survey. Only by gaining an understanding of the conditions and drivers allowing or encouraging researchers to act within the realm of research misconduct can we remove them and cultivate a true culture of research integrity.

About the authors:

Dr Simon Kolstoe is an Associate Professor of Bioethics and University Ethics Advisor at the University of Portsmouth, the Chief Investigator of the Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Survey, and a UKRIO trustee. He chairs ethics committees for the Health Research Authority, UK Health Security Agency, and UK Ministry of Defence and is the UK adapting author of the popular Oxford University Press “Research Integrity” online course.

Stephanie Neave is the CEO of the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), a national charity established in 2006 to provide independent support on research integrity to the UK research community and the public. Prior to UKRIO, Stephanie headed research departments for a range of national and global organisations, including the Equality Challenge Unit (now Advance HE), Engineering UK, and Mission 44. She has led on research projects relating to equality, education, and skills at both the national and international level, including for the European Commission, Wellcome Trust, and the Royal Society.