The tougher guidelines on research conduct. Dr. Alisher Agzamov MD PhD

The tougher guidelines on research conduct. Dr. Alisher Agzamov MD phD

Geoff Watts. Research Councils UK issues tougher guidelines on research conduct. BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1565 (Published 8 March 2013)

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f1565

Research Councils UK has issued more explicit guidelines on the conduct that it expects from holders of its members’ research grants.¹ 

Unlike the document it replaces, published in 2009, it also outlines the likely penalties facing individuals and institutions that knowingly break the rules.

“We want to be seen to be tougher, but there’s a balance to be struck,” said Dr Tony Peatfield, director of corporate affairs at the Medical Research Council. “The more you threaten sticks rather than carrots, the greater the temptation for institutions to bury stuff. I think we’ve got the right balance.”

In the case of proven research misconduct the report lists the sanctions that might be applied. For the individuals concerned the research councils would reserve the right to withdraw funding and disallow future applications for grants for any fixed period of time, or even indefinitely. A researcher’s institution might also be required to return all the money awarded to the individual.

Research Councils UK is the strategic partnership of all seven of the country’s research councils. The new guidelines are now in line with a set of recommendations already laid out in a 2012 concordat on research conduct organised by Universities UK and approved by most of the country’s main funding bodies.

The new guidance sets standards of good research practice and also defines unacceptable research conduct. It explains how alleged misconduct should be reported and investigated and clarifies the responsibilities of the research councils, as opposed to research institutions, in fostering high standards.

The report emphasises the importance, where relevant, of clear procedures for obtaining ethical approval for intended work; seeking the informed consent of subjects; and ensuring that all staff are aware of these procedures.

“Peer reviewers,” it says, “must declare any conflicts of interest, including professional, personal or commercial conflicts, and must not take advantage of any information received as a result of their peer reviewing role.”

Commenting on what it considers to be unacceptable research conduct, the report says, “The spectrum of inappropriate behaviour is wide, ranging from minor misdemeanours which may happen occasionally and inadvertently, to significant acts of misappropriation or fabrication.”

Unacceptable conduct includes the creation of false data, the inappropriate manipulation of data and images, plagiarism, and misrepresentation. The last of these covers the suppression of relevant findings and/or data, the undisclosed duplication of published reports, the failure to declare material interests, false claims about qualifications and/or experience, and inappropriate claims to authorship.

The report suggests that any preliminary investigation of suspected misconduct should be carried out informally, and outlines how this might be done. If the suspicion is substantiated, it describes how a more formal procedure should be conducted.

Notes: Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f1565

References

1.    Research Councils UK. RCUK policy and guidelines on governance of good research conduct. www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/reviews/grc/RCUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchPracticeFebruary2013.pdf