Research Integrity: a Landscape Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research integrity: a landscape study UK Research and Innovation Brand Guidelines / Bringing our brand to life Contents 14 LOGO UKRI logo Symbol and logotype Our logo The UKRI logo consists of two elements: our symbol and our logotype. Logo colour Our logo uses our brand colour UKRI Blue. To reproduce UKRI Blue as accurately as SRVVLEOHIROORZWKHVHVSHFLͤFDWLRQV For print use, our logo colour is: Pantone® 2758 C, or C100 M95 Y5 K39 For screen use, our logo colour is: R46 G45 B98, or Hex: #2E2D62 Preferred colouring June 2020 This colouring is the primary version of our logo. A secondary version which uses a white logotype, and monotone versions for situations where colour is not available, are shown later in this section. UKRI symbol UKRI logotype Always use the artwork The logo should always be reproduced from UKRI logo WKHSURYLGHGDUWZRUNͤOHDQGPXVWQRWEH stretched, squashed, re-drawn or altered in any way. Our logo artwork is available Our logo colour: UKRI Blue in the following formats: Pantone® 2758 Pantone®: ai, pdf CMYK: ai, pdf, tif RGB: ai, emf, pdf, png Greyscale: ai, emf, pdf, png Please note that the contents of this document are exclusively for demonstration, comparison and review, and individual images may belong to third parties and may not be reproduced in any way. RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDY Vitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited ContentsResearch Integrity: Foreworda landscape study 4 Executive summary 6 1. Introduction 11 1.1 Purpose of the study 11 1.2 Defining research integrity 11 Research integrity: 1.3 Defining incentives 12 1.4 The study’s scope and methodology 13 a landscape study 1.5 Limitations 14 1.6 The report’s structure 15 2. Research integrity: understanding,Authors awareness and motivation 17 Vitae in partnership with the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and the 2.1Dr JanetUnderstanding Metcalfe, Vitae of research integrity 17 UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) 2.2Dr KatieAwareness Wheat, ofVitae research integrity initiatives 18 2.3 Researchers’ intrinsic motivations 19 Commissioned by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Professor Marcus Munafò, UK Reproducibility Network 3. LocalJames culture Parry, UKand Research people Integrity Office 21 3.1 Bullying and harassment 21 Vitae, © 2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited 3.2 Research leadership and management 22 Authors [email protected] Dr Janet Metcalfe, Vitae 4. Relationshipwww.vitae.ac.uk between research integrity and Dr Katie Wheat, Vitae academic disciplines 23 4.1 Disciplinary norms 23 Professor Marcus Munafò, UKRN About Vitae 4.2 Interdisciplinary research 24 James Parry, UKRIO 4.3Vitae Exposure is the global to other leader norms in supporting the professional development25 of researchers, experienced in working with institutions as they strive for Vitae, © 2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited 5. Institutionalresearch excellence, processes innovation and impact. 26 5.1 Research strategy and governance 26 5.2Vitae The and REF its membership programme are managed by the 26 5.3 League tables 27 Acknowledgements Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited an independent 5.4 Codes of practice 28 registered charity. CRAC Registered Charity No 313164. We are grateful to Research England, UKRI, and their External Advisory 5.5 Institutional ethics processes 28 Group for their support and guidance during the project and would like to 5.6CRAC Reporting research misconduct 29 5.7 Employment conditions 29 record our thanks to the interviewees, workshop participants and survey 22 Signet Court 5.8 Professional development and training 30 respondents for sharing their time and experiences. Swanns Road 6. SystemicCambridge pressures 32 External Advisory Group members: Dr Steven Hill (Research England - 6.1CB5 Competitive 8LA environment 32 Chair), Dr Simon Kolstoe (University of Portsmouth), Neil Jacobs (UKRI), 6.2 Pressure to publish 34 Prof Ottoline Leyser (University of Cambridge), Prof Malcolm Macleod 6.3 Time pressures and job security 35 Acknowledgements (University of Edinburgh), Dr Elaine Morley (UKRI), Leonie Shanks 6.4 The publishing peer-review process 36 6.5We areOpen grateful research to Research England, UKRI and the External Advisory37 (Universities UK), Dr Karen Salt (UKRI), Dr Netta Weinstein (Cardiff 6.6Group EDI for initiatives their support and genderand guidance during the project and would38 also University), and Dr Frances Downey (UKRI). Research England project 6.7like toPublic record perception our thanks of toresearch, the interviewees, and the media workshop participants40 and support was provided by Dr Helen Snaith and Dr Lewis Dean and was 7. Perceptionssurvey respondents of how to for improve sharing research their time integrity and experiences. 42 greatly appreciated. 7.1 Who is most responsible for improving research Our thanks to other members of the project team; Karen Haynes integrity? 42 We also thank other members of the project team: Karen Haynes Supporting annexes are available as 7.2(Frontinus), Trustworthiness Dr Robin Mellors-Bourne of the research andenvironment Meryem Yilmaz (CRAC),43 separate documents. (Frontinus), Dr Robin Mellors-Bourne and Meryem Yilmaz (CRAC), 7.3Dr Anne-MarieStakeholder Coriat views (Wellcome), on improving Dr Mauraresearch Hiney integrity (Health Research44 Dr Anne-Marie Coriat (the Wellcome Trust), Dr Maura Hiney (the Health www.ukri.org/about-us/policies- Board Ireland), and Dr Robby Thibault and Dr Jackie Thompson 8. Conclusion 48 Research Board, Ireland), and Dr Robby Thibault and Dr Jackie Thompson and-standards/research-integrity/ (University of Bristol). 8.1 Complexity of the research ecosystem 48 (the University of Bristol). Annex A: Literature review 8.2The Trustworthinessinterpretations and of opinionsindividuals in this versus report are those of the authors and Annex B: Quantitative data summary trustworthiness of the system 49 The interpretations and opinions in this report are those of the authors and may not reflect the policy positions of UKRI. Annex C: Qualitative workshop summary 8.3 Influence of the immediate environment 50 may not reflect the policy positions of UKRI. Annex D: Qualitative interview summary 8.4 Opportunities for all stakeholders 51 3 RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDY Vitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited The importance of interdisciplinary working, and intersectoral and Foreword international collaborations and the positive impact on research integrity should not be overlooked. Almost 8 in 10 researchers agree that Research integrity means undertaking and conducting research in a way undertaking interdisciplinary research drives them to achieve high levels that ensures it is trustworthy and ethical. It also encompasses a set of of research integrity: opportunities to collaborate across different research professional standards that researchers should adopt and that research contexts, and the exposure to other disciplinary norms is believed to have organisations should promote and support to ensure this. Research a positive influence. UKRI’s unique position – that is, one that encourages integrity is central to our vision at UK Research and Innovation and cuts and facilitates its nine constituent bodies to work together – means that across all we do as a research organisation, funder and partner. As a we can build upon the strength, breadth, and diversity of UK research and signatory of the UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity, we are encourage this approach to interdisciplinary working. committed to upholding the core values of honesty, rigour, transparency, care and respect, and accountability. Vitae’s study has found that there is a tension between researchers’ strong sense of personal values to uphold research integrity and systemic In January 2017, the Science and Technology Select Committee (Commons) pressures that risk undermining these values. Poorly designed and launched an inquiry into research integrity. Following collection of both inappropriate research metrics and the use of university league tables have written and oral evidence, the Committee published its final report in July the potential to create a strong negative impact on research integrity. High 2018. The Committee’s report highlighted that there is a need to better workloads and precarious working conditions all contribute to perverse understand what incentives and effects there are in the UK research and incentives that risk compromising research integrity. funding system that influence researcher and institutional behaviour in the context of research integrity. The report asked that UKRI commission An important and concerning finding is that incidents of bullying and research to understand the effects of these incentives. Sir Mark Walport harassment are cited as the top factor negatively impacting research integrity. UKRI is working with other funders and partners through a new Vitae, working with UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and the UK Chief Executive, funders’ forum to join up our approaches to tackling these issues. Last Reproducibility Network (UKRN), were commissioned by UKRI to conduct UK Research and Innovation year we published our bullying and harassment position statement which a study into the effects of incentives in the research system on researcher set out our intention to focus on strategies for prevention and improving behaviour. The study, overseen by an expert advisory group, was conducted reporting and resolution