<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Irresponsible Research Practices">

	<head>
		<title>Misconduct vs questionable research practices</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
		<style>
			.pds-question-top { display: none; }
			.col-xs-12 { width: 14%; }
		</style>
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="irp_1_30"
				current-module = "Irresponsible Research Practices"
				page-title = "Misconduct vs questionable research practices"
				screen-time = "4"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>Irresponsible practice in research was initially referred to as either 'research fraud' or 'research misconduct'. These terms came into widespread use in the 1980s, following the first public reports of major cases of irresponsible behaviour in research.</p>

						</page-content-main>
						
						<page-content-sidebar>
							
							<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION START -->
							<pod variant="b" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Additional information</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Additional information</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<interactive-text>
										<p>See the table below for a breakdown of the number of mentions of 'research misconduct' per decade:</p>
										<!-- TABLE START -->
										<table class="table table-bordered">
											<thead>
												<tr>
													<th width="50%">Decade</th>
													<th width="50%">Research Misconduct</th>
												</tr>
											</thead>
											<tbody>
												<tr>
													<td>1970&ndash;79</td>
													<td>10</td>
												</tr>
												<tr>
													<td>1980&ndash;89</td>
													<td>69</td>
												</tr>
												<tr>
													<td>1990&ndash;99</td>
													<td>753</td>
												</tr>
												<tr>
													<td>2000&ndash;10</td>
													<td>2900</td>
												</tr>
												<tr>
													<td>2010&ndash;18</td>
													<td>9380</td>
												</tr>
											</tbody>
										</table>
										<!-- TABLE END -->
										<p>These statistics are based on a decade-by-decade search for the term 'research misconduct' in Google Scholar.</p>
									</interactive-text>
									<!-- ACCESSIBLE TEXT -->
									<accessible-text>
										<p>Continue on for a breakdown of the number of mentions of 'research misconduct' per decade:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Between 1970&ndash;79, 10 mentions of 'research misconduct' are recorded</li>
											<li>Between 1980&ndash;89, 69 are recorded</li>
											<li>Between 1990&ndash;99, 753 are recorded</li>
											<li>Between 2000&ndash;10, 2900 are recorded</li>
											<li>Between 2010&ndash;18, 9380 are recorded</li>
										</ul>
										<p>These statistics are based on a decade-by-decade search for the term 'research misconduct' in Google Scholar.</p>
									</accessible-text>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION END -->
							
						</page-content-sidebar>
						
					</page-row>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<p>However, as more became known about research behaviour, other behaviours were identified as irresponsible but not serious enough to be classed as 'research misconduct'. This led to the adoption of other terms, including <glossary placement="bottom" content="A term for less serious types of irresponsible behaviour often relating to poor research design and/or inadequate reporting. This term was first suggested in a US National Academies report in 2000. If your country or institution uses a different term for these offences, think in terms of your local context as you take this course.">questionable research practices</glossary> (QRPs).</p>
							
							<h3>The spectrum of irresponsible behaviours</h3>
							
							<p>Integrity researchers have identified dozens of practices that, under certain circumstances, could be considered irresponsible (Bouter <em>et al.</em>, 2016). These occur at every stage in the research process, and fall along a spectrum that spans both QRPs and misconduct. Determining where specific behaviours fall along this spectrum is a challenge &ndash; how would you classify the behaviours presented below along the spectrum?</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Place the examples of behaviours you may encounter during each phase of your research project where you think they belong on the spectrum from QRPs to misconduct, by dragging and dropping each term into the appropriate box. Once you have finished placing all of the items, click to read our feedback.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider the examples of behaviours you may encounter during each phase of your research project where you think they belong on the spectrum from QRPs to misconduct. Once you have considered all of the behaviours, continue on for our feedback.</p></instructional-text-accessible>

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<classification show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<any-category-answers>
									<classify-item><p>Errors in analysis</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Inadequate record-keeping</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Selective referencing</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Withholding methods</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Not registering research</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Ignoring data points</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Not declaring a conflict of interest</p></classify-item>
									<classify-item><p>Copyright infringement</p></classify-item>
								</any-category-answers>
								<categories>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
									<category><category-heading></category-heading></category>
								</categories>
								<div class="spectrum">
									<div class="left-heading">QRPs</div>
									<div class="right-heading">Misconduct</div>
									<div class="spectrum-arrow"></div>
								</div>
							</classification>
							<!-- feedback -->
							<interactive-text>
								<feedback-reveal>
									<p>While errors in analysis, inadequate record-keeping and referencing mistakes may be the result of honest human error, they are still considered to be questionable research practices. Responsible researchers are aware of their natural human frailties and try to design their research in a way that will minimise the risk of errors. </p>
									<p>However, withholding methods and not registering research are considered to be more serious examples of questionable research practices because they are less likely to be unintentional &ndash; depending on the circumstances, such practices may even be considered examples of misconduct. </p>
									<p>Ignoring data points, failing to declare conflicts of interest and infringing copyright are potentially even more serious, as they are often done intentionally and can have serious consequences. An important part of a researcher's education is learning how to distinguish between genuine mistakes, which should be avoided if possible and corrected if they occur, and more serious misconduct issues.</p>
								</feedback-reveal>
							</interactive-text>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<p>In this activity, you are asked to place items on a scale spanning from QRPs to misconduct. There are no correct or incorrect answers.</p>
								<p>Here is the list of items that you are asked to place along the spectrum:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Errors in analysis</li>
									<li>Inadequate record-keeping</li>
									<li>Selective referencing</li>
									<li>Withholding methods</li>
									<li>Not registering research</li>
									<li>Ignoring data points</li>
									<li>Not declaring a conflict of interest</li>
									<li>Copyright infringement</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>While errors in analysis, inadequate record-keeping and referencing mistakes may be the result of honest human error, they are still considered to be questionable research practices. Responsible researchers are aware of their natural human frailties and try to design their research in a way that will minimise the risk of errors. </p>
								<p>However, withholding methods and not registering research are considered to be more serious examples of questionable research practices because they are less likely to be unintentional &ndash; depending on the circumstances, such practices may even be considered examples of misconduct. </p>
								<p>Ignoring data points, failing to declare conflicts of interest and infringing copyright are potentially even more serious, as they are often done intentionally and can have serious consequences. An important part of a researcher's education is learning how to distinguish between genuine mistakes, which should be avoided if possible and corrected if they occur, and more serious misconduct issues.</p>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
						
						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>The responses to these practices vary from country to country and institution to institution, as does how serious they are determined to be. This is because there is often no clear line separating misconduct from QRPs. However, if a specific behaviour is more of a QRP than a misconduct issue, this does not mean it should be taken any less seriously. QRPs are perhaps the main cause of research waste.</p>
							
							<h3>Questionable research practices</h3>
							
							<p>In 2009, Iain Chalmers and Paul Glasziou published a paper in <em>The Lancet</em> estimating that 85% of medical research is wasted because "it asks the wrong questions, is badly designed, not published or poorly reported" (The REWARD Alliance, 2014). While this probably represents a pessimistic view, Chalmers and Glasziou's work has highlighted that a significant amount of research fails to produce usable outcomes. Although some research projects simply fail to work out, it is still important to ensure that negative results are published. A failure to publish negative results is, therefore, an example of a QRP.</p>
							<p>QRPs can emerge at various points in the research process, and it is worth contemplating the questions you should ask yourself across the duration of your project to ensure you are conducting your research responsibly.</p>

							<instructional-text><p>Click on each segment to see examples of the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself at every stage of a research project to avoid engaging in QRPs that might lead to research waste. This activity is based on an article from <em>The Lancet</em> (Chalmers and Glasziou, 2009).</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Continue on for examples of the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself at every stage of a research project to avoid engaging in QRPs that might lead to research waste. This activity is based on an article from The Lancet (Chalmers and Glasziou, 2009).</p></instructional-text-accessible>
						
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>	

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<related-concepts show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<central-concept>
									<node-heading>Avoiding QRPs</node-heading>
									<node-content>
										<p>Research is wasted if it asks the wrong questions or is badly designed, not published or poorly reported. This can be prevented by good research planning (see the "Planning Your Research" module).</p>
									</node-content>
								</central-concept>
								<concept-nodes>
									<concept-node>
										<node-heading>Is my research question relevant?</node-heading>
										<node-content>
											<ul>
												<li>Does it add to the existing literature?</li>
												<li>Have patients/user groups highlighted this area as important?</li>
												<li>Has anyone done this research before?</li>
												<li>Is this the best use of my time/funding?</li>
											</ul>
										</node-content>
									</concept-node>
									<concept-node>
										<node-heading>Am I using the best methodology?</node-heading>
										<node-content>
											<ul>
												<li>Have I got enough participants/repeats/sources?</li>
												<li>Do I need controls?</li>
												<li>Do I, or does someone I am working with, have experience in using the proposed method?</li>
												<li>Have I explored alternative methods?</li>
												<li>Do I understand all the statistical aspects of my analysis?</li>
												<li>Are there other researchers who I can turn to if I get stuck using this method?</li>
											</ul>
										</node-content>
									</concept-node>
									<concept-node>
										<node-heading>Have I done the necessary planning?</node-heading>
										<node-content>
											<ul>
												<li>Do I have enough time/funding to complete the work?</li>
												<li>Has my proposed work/project been peer reviewed?</li>
												<li>Do I need governance or ethics reviews?</li>
												<li>Do I need other permissions?</li>
												<li>Am I likely to be breaking any laws (e.g. data protection laws)?</li>
											</ul>
										</node-content>
									</concept-node>
									<concept-node>
										<node-heading>How will my results be reported?</node-heading>
										<node-content>
											<ul>
												<li>Am I working to a pre-determined data management plan?</li>
												<li>Have I got a publication/dissemination plan?</li>
												<li>What will I do if I get negative/insignificant results?</li>
												<li>Have I got permission from all my collaborators to publish my results?</li>
											</ul>
										</node-content>
									</concept-node>
									<concept-node>
										<node-heading>Will my results be usable?</node-heading>
										<node-content>
											<ul>
												<li>Should I be considering intellectual property/data ownership issues?</li>
												<li>How will other researchers access my complete methods?</li>
												<li>How will other researchers access my raw data?</li>
												<li>Should I plan to write a review putting my results into context?</li>
											</ul>
										</node-content>
									</concept-node>
								</concept-nodes>
							</related-concepts>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->

							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Avoiding QRPs</h4>
								<p>Research is wasted if it asks the wrong questions or is badly designed, not published or poorly reported. This can be prevented by good research planning (see the "Planning Your Research" module).</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Is my research question relevant?</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Does it add to the existing literature?</li>
									<li>Have patients/user groups highlighted this area as important?</li>
									<li>Has anyone done this research before?</li>
									<li>Is this the best use of my time/funding?</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Am I using the best methodology?</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Have I got enough participants/repeats/sources?</li>
									<li>Do I need controls?</li>
									<li>Do I, or does someone I am working with, have experience in using the proposed method?</li>
									<li>Have I explored alternative methods?</li>
									<li>Do I understand all the statistical aspects of my analysis?</li>
									<li>Are there other researchers who I can turn to if I get stuck using this method?</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Have I done the necessary planning?</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Do I have enough time/funding to complete the work?</li>
									<li>Has my proposed work/project been peer reviewed?</li>
									<li>Do I need governance or ethics reviews?</li>
									<li>Do I need other permissions?</li>
									<li>Am I likely to be breaking any laws (e.g. data protection laws)?</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>How will my results be reported?</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Am I working to a pre-determined data management plan?</li>
									<li>Have I got a publication/dissemination plan?</li>
									<li>What will I do if I get negative/insignificant results?</li>
									<li>Have I got permission from all my collaborators to publish my results?</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Will my results be usable?</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Should I be considering intellectual property/data ownership issues?</li>
									<li>How will other researchers access my complete methods?</li>
									<li>How will other researchers access my raw data?</li>
									<li>Should I plan to write a review putting my results into context?</li>
								</ul>
							</accessible-block>
							
							<p>QRPs are not always intentional, and often emerge due to researchers lacking awareness of what is expected of them. However, when QRPs are exposed and publicised, there is a very real risk that public trust in research can be undermined. It is, therefore, important to question yourself at every stage &ndash; if you are unsure of what's expected or whether you might be crossing the line into irresponsible behaviour, you should ask for advice from a supervisor, a mentor or colleagues in the first instance. If you are still unsure, you can approach your institution's research office or research ethics committee.</p>
							
							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>As a researcher, it is important that you are aware of the various ways in which researchers can stray from responsible behaviour. This will help you to conduct the highest quality research yourself, and will also allow you to support others in your field.</p>
						
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>