<!DOCTYPE html>

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

	<head>
		<title>Characterising misbehaviour</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">
	<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_20"
				current-module = "Irresponsible Research Practices"
				page-title = "Characterising misbehaviour"
				screen-time = "5"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>Researchers and policy makers generally agree that irresponsible research practices should be addressed as a range of behaviours, rather than all being incorporated into a single category of equally objectionable behaviours. For example, failing to include a somewhat related publication in the background section of your paper is not equivalent to making up all of the data you report.</p>
							<p>Some irresponsible research behaviours are serious and require a formal response (e.g. an investigation), while others are less serious and can be addressed less formally (e.g. an informal discussion between a mentor and mentee about good research conduct).</p>
							
							<h3>Approaches to irresponsible practice</h3>
							
							<p>Research organisations (institutions, funders, etc.) generally address irresponsible practice through either:</p>
							
							<ul>
								<li><strong>Misconduct policies</strong>, which are organised around practices that should be avoided (usually grouped under the category of 'research misconduct') and procedures for investigating and acting on allegations. They usually provide little to no guidance on how to respond to irresponsible practices that are not considered to be misconduct.</li>
								<li><strong>Codes of conduct</strong>, which define practices that researchers should follow and establish procedures for responding to breaches of those practices. They usually provide some guidance on distinguishing between serious and less serious breaches, and how each should be addressed.</li>
							</ul>
							
							<p>While the two approaches generally come to similar conclusions about irresponsible practices, they reach those conclusions in different ways.</p>

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-sidebar>

							<interactive-text>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
								<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
									<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
									<pod-content></pod-content>
									<!-- pop-up pod content -->
									<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
									<pod-modal-content>
										<hosted-link id="RI_INT_irp_1_20">
											<p>Click the hyperlinks below to access different countries' codes, policies or guidelines:</p>
											<ul>
												<li>United States &ndash; <a href="https://ori.hhs.gov/federal-research-misconduct-policy" target="_blank">Federal Research Misconduct Policy (2000)</a></li>
												<li>Canada &ndash; <a href="http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/" target="_blank">Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2016)</a></li>
												<li>Europe &ndash; <a href="https://www.allea.org/publications/joint-publications/european-code-conduct-research-integrity/" target="_blank">The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)</a></li>
												<li>United Kingdom &ndash; <a href="https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Procedure-for-the-Investigation-of-Misconduct-in-Research.pdf" target="_blank">Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (2008)</a></li>
											</ul>
										</hosted-link>
									</pod-modal-content>
								</pod>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->
							</interactive-text>

						</page-content-sidebar>

						<page-content-main>

							<instructional-text><p>For examples of both these approaches, as well as a combined approach, click through the tabs below to review how irresponsible practice is approached in various different countries.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>For examples of both these approaches, as well as a combined approach, continue on for an overview of how irresponsible practice is approached in various different countries.</p></instructional-text-accessible>

						</page-content-main>

						<page-content-wide>
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<tab-set orientation="vertical">
								<tab-item>
									<tab-heading><p>Misconduct policy: United States &ndash; Federal Research Misconduct Policy</p></tab-heading>
									<tab-content>
										<p>The US approaches irresponsible practice in research as misconduct, and limits the scope of government investigation to three offences: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.</p>
										<p>Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion. The US policy is also limited to government-funded research; privately funded research is not subject to the same regulations (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2000).</p>
									</tab-content>
								</tab-item>
								<tab-item>
									<tab-heading><p>Code of conduct: Canada &ndash; Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research </p></tab-heading>
									<tab-content>
										<p>In Canada, a breach of the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research is considered "the failure to comply with any Agency policy throughout the lifecycle of a research project &ndash; from application for funding, to the conduct of the research and the dissemination of research results. In determining whether an individual has breached an Agency policy, it is not relevant to consider whether a breach was intentional or the result of an honest error. However, intent is a consideration in deciding on the severity of the recourse that may be imposed" (Government of Canada, 2016, section 3.1). Breaches of Agency policies include the following:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Fabrication</li>
											<li>Falsification</li>
											<li>Destruction of research records</li>
											<li>Plagiarism</li>
											<li>Redundant publication or self-plagiarism</li>
											<li>Invalid authorship</li>
											<li>Inadequate acknowledgement</li>
											<li>Mismanagement of conflict of interest (Government of Canada, 2016, section 3.1.1).</li>
										</ul>
									</tab-content>
								</tab-item>
								<tab-item>
									<tab-heading><p>Combined approach: Europe &ndash; The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity</p></tab-heading>
									<tab-content>
										<p>The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines, in all research settings. In Europe, research misconduct is traditionally classed as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.</p>
										<p>These are termed 'violations' and are considered to be most serious due to their impact upon the research record. Other 'unacceptable practices' include the following:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Poor authorship practices</li>
											<li>Self-plagiarism</li>
											<li>Selective citation of your own or others' works</li>
											<li>Withholding research results</li>
											<li>Allowing funders to impact the independence of reporting research results</li>
											<li>Unnecessary expansion of bibliography</li>
											<li>Malicious and unfounded accusations of misconduct</li>
											<li>Misrepresenting research achievements</li>
											<li>Exaggerating the outcomes of findings</li>
											<li>Delaying or hampering the work of other researchers</li>
											<li>Misusing seniority to encourage research misconduct</li>
											<li>Ignoring or covering up research misconduct by others (ALLEA &ndash; ALL European Academies, Hermer&eacute;n, G. <em>et al.</em>, 2017).</li>
										</ul>
									</tab-content>
								</tab-item>
							</tab-set>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
						</page-content-wide>

						<page-content-main>

							<p>These differences in approach, in part, define how countries, institutions and individuals think about integrity in research.</p>

							<accessible-text>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
								<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
									<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
									<pod-content></pod-content>
									<!-- pop-up pod content -->
									<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
									<pod-modal-content>
										<hosted-link id="RI_INT_irp_1_20">
											<p>Click the hyperlinks below to access different countries' codes, policies or guidelines:</p>
											<ul>
												<li>United States &ndash; <a href="https://ori.hhs.gov/federal-research-misconduct-policy" target="_blank">Federal Research Misconduct Policy (2000)</a></li>
												<li>Canada &ndash; <a href="http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/" target="_blank">Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2016)</a></li>
												<li>Europe &ndash; <a href="https://www.allea.org/publications/joint-publications/european-code-conduct-research-integrity/" target="_blank">The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)</a></li>
												<li>United Kingdom &ndash; <a href="https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Procedure-for-the-Investigation-of-Misconduct-in-Research.pdf" target="_blank">Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (2008)</a></li>
											</ul>
										</hosted-link>
									</pod-modal-content>
								</pod>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->
							</accessible-text>
							
						</page-content-main>

					</page-row>

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

							<h3>UK approach</h3>
							
							<p>Appreciating the differences in approach between countries can be important if you plan to work with researchers at other institutions or in various locations around the world. For now, however, you should ensure you feel confident about the basic approach taken in the UK.</p>
							<p>The UK system is largely based around the activities of the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). UKRIO provides an independent investigatory/advisory function and also publishes a wide range of resources to help institutions promote research integrity and investigate allegations of research misconduct. The advice and guidance provided by UKRIO serves as the basis for many research misconduct investigations in the UK. Specifically, the general approach to defining research misconduct is outlined in the Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research (UKRIO, 2008).</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Match the terms to their corresponding definitions to explore the key areas that UKRIO (2008, p. 29) defines as misconduct.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Continue on to explore the key areas that UKRIO (2008, p. 29) defines as misconduct.</p></instructional-text-accessible>

						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>

							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<matching>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Fabrication</match-left>
									<match-right>Inventing or making up research data or results.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Falsification</match-left>
									<match-right>Inappropriately altering research data or results.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Misrepresentation of data</match-left>
									<match-right>Presenting data or results out of context.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Misrepresentation of interests</match-left>
									<match-right>Failing to declare or address competing interests.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Misrepresentation of involvement</match-left>
									<match-right>Claiming that someone either: fulfils the criteria for authorship/attribution of a work when they do not; or does not meet the criteria for authorship/attribution of a work when they do.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Plagiarism</match-left>
									<match-right>Copying someone else's ideas, intellectual property or work without clearly attributing the source, or using someone else's results or ideas/theories and presenting them as your own.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
								<matching-set>
									<match-left>Failure to follow accepted procedures in research or exercise due care</match-left>
									<match-right>This includes causing unjustifiable risk or harm to humans, animals and the environment, and improperly handling privileged or private information.</match-right>
								</matching-set>
							</matching>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->													
							
						</page-content-wide>

					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>According to UKRIO's Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research, "misconduct in research includes acts of omission as well as acts of commission". Additionally, the document clarifies that an individual's responsibility for an act of misconduct depends on whether there is evidence of intent or recklessness (UKRIO, 2008, p. 29).</p>
							<p>In the UK, there are currently only guidelines as to what constitutes irresponsible research practice. But work is underway by various organisations, including UKRIO, Universities UK (UUK), the Health Research Authority (HRA) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), among others, to better define, detect and deal with irresponsible research practices. For further discussion of this and the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry on research integrity, see the "Additional information" pod.</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>
									<p>In 2017&ndash;18, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee conducted an inquiry into the topic of research integrity and found that the voluntary nature of UKRIO's guidance and codes was not sufficient to guard against irresponsible research practices. It formulated a number of conclusions and recommendations, which were mainly focused around the changes needed to create a "healthy research culture".</p>
									<p>The 2018 inquiry report highlighted that more could be done by:</p>
									<ul>
										<li>UUK, in promoting and ensuring adherence to their Concordat to Support Research Integrity</li>
										<li>The HRA, in regulating and promoting good practice in health/NHS research (especially regarding research transparency)</li>
										<li>UKRI, in regard to better vetting who government research funding is handed out to, and keeping track of researchers who have a record of misconduct (Parliament UK, 2019). In response to this, UKRI has committed to setting up a new research integrity committee that will have oversight of university research misconduct investigation procedures. UKRI will be able to apply sanctions if universities do not comply with the conditions of receiving funding when investigating misconduct.</li>
									</ul>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION END -->
							
						</page-content-sidebar>
					</page-row>

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

							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>If you encounter an irresponsible practice by someone else, or are yourself accused of engaging in an irresponsible practice, you must be aware of the context in which the behaviour will be judged. Your idea of 'significant' or 'irresponsible' might not match the definitions used by the policies under which you are operating, which is why it is so important to be aware of the definitions and concepts that might apply.</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>