Share |

Review of Current UK Arrangements for the Oversight of Good Research Conduct and Research Integrity

Introduction

In August 2009, People Science & Policy Ltd (PSP) was commissioned by Research Councils UK (RCUK) working with Universities UK (UUK) to support the Research Integrity Futures Working Group in its review of the current UK arrangements for the oversight of good research conduct and research integrity. The Working Group will be considering:

the existing arrangements for research integrity in the UK;
the terms of reference for any new arrangements from 2010;
the governance arrangements of any new arrangements, including issues of independence and relationship to key stakeholders and sponsors;
the mechanics of the day-to-day functioning of any new arrangements;
the funding and resourcing required for any future provision; and
the look and feel of the service that would be required by employers, researchers and sponsors.

PSP’s role is to undertake an exploratory research project to provide evidence to support the Working Group’s considerations.

1.1 Objectives

Through the Research Integrity Futures Working Group, RCUK and other sponsors of existing efforts to promote good research practice are now considering future options for ensuring research integrity in the UK. There are a number of objectives for this research project which supports those considerations. These objectives which can be set out as:

to identify and consult organisations with an interest in research integrity;
to propose options for the way forward with respect to the remit, composition, functions, legal status, accountability, independence, impartiality, and management of any body/bodies;
to estimate the annual budget required for proposed future arrangements taking into account the potential need for policy guidance, benchmarking, development and review of standards, training, analysis, guidance and communication;
to consider the modus operandi of any new body and its relationships with existing agencies such as RCUK, the Higher Education Funding Councils and other research funders and employers; and
to consider transition arrangements to any new body from the existing arrangements.

1.2 Methodology

PSP is drawing on five sources of data for this study:

face-to-face and telephone interviews with key organisations;
telephone and face-to-face interviews with a wider range of UK stakeholders;
the reports on the consultations on the draft codes of conduct issued by RCUK and UKRIO;
the reports of two international meetings held in 2007; and
email and telephone contributions from organisations in a number of other research intensive countries and from international organisations with an interest in research integrity

1.2.1 Interviews

PSP interviewed ten organisations (14 individuals) as part of a scoping stage and subsequently contacted a further 44 individuals and organisations in the UK and six overseas and international organisations. One person refused to participate on the grounds of knowing little about the topic and one person responded too late to be included.

In total we have interviewed 42 individuals (four from overseas) from 36 organisations (four from overseas ⁽¹⁾) – in some organisations we interviewed more than one individual and some interviewees asked to be considered as individuals. In the interviews we have explored:

individual and organisational experiences of issues relating to the integrity or otherwise of research practice;
views on whether there is a need for a central UK function to support research integrity;
the roles that a central UK function might undertake; and
possible structures for a central UK function.

A list of those whose views have been incorporated into this document can be found at appendix 2.

1.2.2 Reports

We have reviewed the reports of the consultations on the RCUK Good Practice Guide ⁽²⁾ and on the UKRIO Code of Practice ⁽³⁾ and a few of the individual responses to the former to provide a flavour of the views from different constituencies.

We have also considered the reports of the “World Conference on Research Integrity” and the OECD workshop on “Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct”.

1.3 Definitions

During the research it has become clear that definitions, both of broad terms such as research integrity, and of much narrower terms including good practice and malpractice, are understood differently by different people. We will go on to recommend that agreeing definitions is a critical part of the next steps for any activity to promote research integrity in the UK. However, for the purposes of drafting this report, we set out below definitions of the terminology as we use it here.

Good practice undertaking research rigorously – ensuring that data is collected, stored, analysed and reported such that findings can be replicated, with attributions clearly acknowledged

Poor practice inadequate research procedures that result from incompetence, ineffective systems or poor training and would include carelessness

Malpractice inadequate or illegal practice that is the result of deliberation actions to misrepresent findings or the contributions of individual researchers and would include negligence

Research conduct the process of carrying out research

Misconduct this is only used in the context of employee-employer relations and the investigation of claims of misconduct within the framework of a contract of employment

1.3.1 Legal implications

Much of the discussions focused on fostering good practice. This report therefore emphasises the importance of encouraging good practice. However, once there is an allegation of malpractice, there will be legal implications. Ultimately there is the potential for the accused to lose their job and possibly their research career. There is also the possibility that employing organisations will be in breach of contract with research funders and may face sanctions from funders. Hence both individuals accused of malpractice and their employing organisations are very likely to seek legal advice regarding their positions relative to one another and external bodies.

1.4 This report

Section 2 of this report considers in some detail the various issues raised by the interviewees. This relatively long section highlights areas of consensus and contention and internal inconsistencies in some of the arguments put forward. It is important that these issues and the arguments around them are considered, as ultimately these set the context within which any research integrity function will be operating.

Section 3 briefly summarises the existing activities to promote research integrity, considering both the legal powers of research funders and the work done to promote good practice.

Section 4 distils the issues raised in section 2 into a number of functions and sets these into an implementation plan.

Finally section 5 considers the organisational options available to deliver the implementation plan.

Downloads:

Download the Full Report (300k, pdf)
Report submitted to RCUK/UUK November 2009, working group report published September 2010

For more information see http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/100907.htm

Notes:

⁽¹⁾ One further international organisation provided documentation for review.
⁽²⁾ Code of Conduct and Policy on the Governance of Good Research Conduct: Integrity, Clarity and Good Management
⁽³⁾ Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct