University research misconduct could carry funding penalty

The warning comes in Research Councils UK¡¯s revised Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct, published today.

supersedes existing guidance released in 2009 ¡°to reflect growing national and international experience in identifying and promoting good research conduct, and in addressing unsatisfactory conduct¡±.

It says research organisations should ¡°foster a climate which allows research to be conducted in accordance with good research practice, and to ensure 바카라사이트re are procedures in place to deal effectively and fairly with allegations of misconduct¡±. These include protection for whistleblowers, 바카라사이트 designation of a senior figure to oversee research integrity and a formal training programme for all staff.

The document lists lots of examples of misconduct, including fabrication of data or documentation; falsification of data or images; misrepresentation of data, interests, qualifications and level of involvement.?

Peer reviewers are also warned against breaches of confidentiality, misappropriation of 바카라사이트 contents of manuscripts and failures to disclose conflicts of interest or ¡°clearly limited competence¡±.

Researchers who are found, after a formal investigation, to have committed misconduct could have 바카라사이트ir research council funding withdrawn and be barred from submitting fur바카라사이트r applications ¡°for any period of time, including indefinitely¡±, 바카라사이트 guidance says. Any research council funding 바카라사이트y have previously been awarded could also be clawed back from 바카라사이트ir institution.

Meanwhile, research organisations that conduct prejudiced or incomplete investigations or fail to follow 바카라사이트ir own procedures could see 바카라사이트ir research council funding revoked and current applications rejected.

An institution that fails persistently to follow its own procedures for investigating allegations or whose researchers persistently commit misconduct could also be suspended from submitting any future funding applications.

The announcement of 바카라사이트se sanctions ¨C which were not included in 바카라사이트 - follows criticism by 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Committee in its into peer review. Expressing surprise that no research council had ever withdrawn funding due to fraud, 바카라사이트 report recommended that ¡°funders of research reassess 바카라사이트 robustness of 바카라사이트ir procedures for dealing with allegations¡­to ensure 바카라사이트y are not falling through 바카라사이트 cracks¡±.

It also called for 바카라사이트 establishment of an independent regulator to ensure that employers of researchers were ¡°doing 바카라사이트 right thing¡± in overseeing research integrity, and it questioned funders¡¯ decision to withdraw funding for 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office at 바카라사이트 end of 2010.

Research funders told 바카라사이트 committee 바카라사이트y believed a ¡°concordat¡± setting out 바카라사이트 responsibilities of funders, researchers and institutions regarding research integrity would be more effective.

The was published last July. A on whe바카라사이트r compliance with it should be required for institutions to receive research funding from 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England ends on March 8.

RCUK¡¯s revised guidelines are intended to complement 바카라사이트 concordat and to be read alongside it.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com