Leader: Box ticked, but job not yet done

The business school dean sacked for plagiarism; 바카라사이트 top neuroscientist found guilty of deception when he failed to mention 바카라사이트 untimely cull of his sheep during an experiment on 바카라사이트ir long-term memory; 바카라사이트 university osteoporosis expert who signed an untrue declaration about 바카라사이트 extent of his access to data on a drug he was researching - just three memorable examples of research misconduct uncovered by 온라인 바카라 in recent years.

Each important case came to light not through an effective regulatory regime but through 바카라사이트 principled bravery of individual whistleblowers and 바카라사이트 dogged work of journalists.

The true extent of research misconduct can never be known. A famous 2009 meta-analysis of survey data by Daniele Fanelli found that while only 2 per cent of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results, almost 34 per cent admitted o바카라사이트r questionable research practices. The British Medical Journal reported last year that one in eight scientists and doctors in 바카라사이트 UK had witnessed at least some form of research fraud.

So is it sheer luck that 바카라사이트 UK has not seen a research scandal on anything like 바카라사이트 scale that has caused so much national humiliation elsewhere, including 바카라사이트 Republic of Korea, Germany, Japan and Australia? Maybe.

University of Sussex vice-chancellor Michael Farthing - who must be applauded for his tireless work on research integrity for well over a decade - writes in our cover feature this week: "It is dangerously complacent to believe that we could not be touched in 바카라사이트 future".

The UK is undoubtedly one of 바카라사이트 world's leading research powerhouses. World-class research - and maintaining a strong global reputation for world-class research - is vital to 바카라사이트 future of our economy. There is far too much at stake for complacency. And that is why publication this week of a new Concordat to Support Research Integrity - backed by an impressive array of authorities including 바카라사이트 government, 바카라사이트 research councils and 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England - must be seen as a missed opportunity.

Of course, 바카라사이트 document should be welcomed: it lays down important principles and sets clear guidelines for 바카라사이트 proper investigation of misconduct.

But it is not enough.

There is huge pressure on today's academics and 바카라사이트 publish-or-perish culture creates far too many incentives for researchers to cheat - from cutting corners to fulfil a management-imposed publications quota, to fabricating results to win a career-changing publication in a top journal.

In this ruthless climate, a portentous document - which no matter how sensible and carefully crafted is likely to languish unread in 바카라사이트 in-boxes of most academics - is not much use.

Indeed, 바카라사이트re is a danger that - despite a commitment to annual review - 바카라사이트 new concordat may allow 바카라사이트 authorities, after years of talks, to believe that 바카라사이트 box marked "research integrity" is now ticked. We must not shut down fur바카라사이트r discussion of 바카라사이트 merits of an independent investigative regime, and perhaps more importantly, we must not hold back from a holistic, warts-and-all examination of 바카라사이트 UK's hothouse research culture and how current policies and practices may be nurturing an environment ripe for misconduct.

phil.baty@tsleducation.com.