1. Research culture and concordats: Lessons learned by UKRIO
February 2017
Research culture and concordats: Lessons learned by UKRIO
James Parry
Chief Executive, UK Research Integrity Office
@UKRIO

2. The Concordat to Support Research Integrity: five ‘commitments’
Maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research
Ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards
Supporting a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers
Using transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise
Working together to strengthen the integrity of research and to reviewing progress regularly and openly
Universities UK et al., The Concordat to Support Research Integrity
In the UK, for some time, there have been growing questions about the reliability of research – and of researchers
Of course, this is an issue for every country and every discipline
Not just concerns about research misconduct but a broader spectrum including questionable research practices, concerns about sloppiness in research
All countries/ jurisdictions rely on self-regulation by researchers. What varies are the structures set up to oversee this and ensure action is taken when needed.
Some national structures are backed by statute, others are not. Both types have strengths and weaknesses.
The UK has adopted a self-regulatory approach, enshrined in The Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
Regulation is not a panacea. But this does not mean that the UK has adopted a ‘job done’ approach!
In the UK: self-regulation approach broadly well-received.
Challenges: changes in how we do research; issue of showing that research integrity is relevant to all researchers.
Self-regulation approach enshrined in the Concordat launched July 2012
Published by Universities UK
Developed/ endorsed by UUK, major funders and Government, supported by others
Note: UKRIO not a stakeholder. Helped a lot to develop it but remain independent.
RCUK, NIHR, the Wellcome Trust and the four higher education funding councils have announced compliance is a condition of grant
High level document
Covers all disciplines / all types of institution
‘One size fits all’ but allows for institutional autonomy
Up to institutions:
How to interpret Concordat
How to implement it
Five broad commitments: the document does go into more detail but we are still talking high-level principles rather than practical guidance
Key theme: a more sustained and visible approach to promoting research integrity.
Many aims:
Sustain and support ‘good’ research practice
Promote so-called ‘best’ practice
Meet legal, contractual and ethical requirements
Prevent/ address mistakes and misconduct
Assurance mechanism for research funders
Help safeguard research participants and retain the public’s trust
Can any one document achieve all this?
And how do you translate these very broad commitments into the everyday practicalities of doing research?
UKRIO has published a Self-Assessment Tool to help institutions implement the Concordat

3. The Concordat to Support Research Integrity: clear focus on ‘research culture’
Universities UK et al., The Concordat to Support Research Integrity
Concordat puts a good research culture at its heart
“Employers of researchers are responsible for:
• collaborating to maintain a research environment that develops good research practice and nurtures a culture of research integrity, as described in commitments 2 to 5
• supporting researchers to understand and act according to expected standards, values and behaviours, and defending them when they live up to these expectations in difficult circumstances
…There should also be no stigma attached to researchers who find that they are in need of assistance from their employers.
…researchers should take a proactive role in their own personal development. Embracing this responsibility plays an important part in nurturing a culture of research integrity.” 3

4. UK Concordat: early impressions
Concordat generally seen as a positive development
Sets out what most institutions should be doing already
Compliance: ‘research integrity as a condition of funding’
Implementation: ‘research integrity as an inherent part of good professional practice’
Concerns about resourcing, audit and reporting
Concerns about reporting misconduct cases
Follow-up support from the Concordat stakeholders?
The Concordat does set out what institutions will/ should already be doing. Caveat: how well are they doing this? 4

5. Formal review of the Concordat: perceived benefits
Proportionate approach, greatly preferable to regulation
Raises awareness of research integrity, ethics and governance
Raises awareness amongst senior managers
Researchers may not be aware of the Concordat itself but they are generally aware of research integrity
Useful as a teaching tool, though seen as general/ generic
Useful in prompting a gap analysis of institutional research integrity provision
Useful in promoting a unified approach within institutions
UUK review: published late 2016, on their website to read 5

6. Formal review of the Concordat: perceived challenges
‘What does compliance mean?’
‘What happens to us if we are not compliant?’
Implementation can be a burden: resource and time implications; significant workload for research integrity staff
Funding council involvement: useful lever for change but also lead to pressure to rush through initiatives
Annual statement: should we publish one? Is it mandatory?
Research misconduct cases: putting numbers in context
Lack of engagement from Concordat stakeholder group
concerns that there has been a lack of communication and clarity from signatories over their expectations around compliance. Most respondents noted that a statement of expectations would be welcomed, although the autonomy of institutions to define approaches to implementation should not be undermined.
area for improvement: the provision of public information on action to promote and embed the principles set out in the concordat.
not due to a lack of activity, as this report demonstrates; however, there is a need for
more to be done to improve accountability. Only 35 annual narrative statements were
identified, and half of institutional websites lacked easy-to-find information on research integrity activities
The founding signatories need to take a more proactive approach to engagement with institutions and those tasked with implementing the provisions of the concordat.
Overall, there has been excellent progress and there is a vibrant community of research professionals actively working to implement both the word and the spirit of the
concordat. This willingness should be built on by the provision of better guidance, more regular and coordinated communications and high-level coordination of the support that is available to institutions. 6

7. Formal review of the Concordat: ongoing support essential
Universities UK et al., The Concordat to Support Research Integrity: A Progress Report
Community-led networks have grown up in the absence of more co-ordinated support from stakeholders
A vibrant community of research managers and administrators tasked with implementing the concordat has grown, with peers sharing expertise, good practice and experiences through a range of forums.
There has also been excellent support and
leadership from the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and professional networks
These community-led networks have been the bedrock of implementation activities. While more should be done by signatories to help signpost practitioners to relevant
professional networks and resources in a coordinated fashion, this process should not undermine these services. Established professional networks should be seen as important partners in establishing a more coherent approach to sector-wide
communications and support for implementation.
Enquiries about implementing the Concordat are the third most common enquiry to UKRIO from institutions.
UKRIO Self-Assessment Tool for The Concordat to Support Research Integrity
‘UKRIO has been a vital link between [our university] and the Concordat signatories’
‘The UKRIO audit tool was essential’
‘UKRIO explained what the Concordat required and helped explore our existing strengths and weaknesses’ 7

8. Formal review of the Concordat: ongoing support essential
UK Research Integrity Office, 2014.
Self-Assessment Tool for The Concordat to Support Research Integrity.
The five key themes we have identified in the Concordat are:
 Policies and systems
 Dissemination
 Culture and development
 Addressing research misconduct
 Monitoring and reporting
Taking each of these key themes in turn, this document poses self-assessment questions for institutions, each mapped onto one or more commitments of the Concordat. For each question, the document also introduces practical ways in which they might be met under the heading ‘possible evidence’.
As noted in the introduction, this self-assessment tool should not be seen as prescriptive but as a guide to inform the implementation of the Concordat. It is up to employers and their researchers to determine the best way to do so in their particular research environment
It should also be noted that the ‘possible evidence’ is for use by institutions as part of the self-assessment process. It is not suggested that this level of information must be collated and provided to external bodies. Rather, it can be used to inform institutional statements on the implementation of the Concordat and, indeed, other internal and external requirements for assurance about research integrity. 8

9. Recurring themes from UKRIO’s advisory service 2006-2016
Focusing on major cases of research misconduct counterproductive.
While institutions must address allegations of major fraud, questionable research practices and sloppiness more common and more insidious.
Researchers often view major fraud as too removed from their working lives – ‘not relevant to me or my research’.
A focus on preventing fabrication, falsification and plagiarism will leave many issues unaddressed.
The first theme is that focusing on major cases alone is not that helpful.
When people talk about research misconduct, they often focus on the stuff which has hit the headlines over the years ..
These major cases have also informed some organisations’ approaches to research integrity.
This focus is understandable: they are fascinating stories and they make people sit up and take notice. But I think this focus can be unhelpful.
Allegations of major fraud simply must be dealt with thoroughly and fairly but…
But if you talk about research integrity and misconduct to students and early-career researchers, as I have on many occasions, and use an example like Malcolm Pearce –there can be two unhelpful consequences, one personal the other institutional….
The average researcher may understandably hear tales of major fraud and think, that’s terrible but what has it got to do with me and my research? …
For institutions, the consequence can be that there are these terrible, headline-grabbing cases of research fraud out there and that’s solely what should inform their approach to research ethics, research governance and preventing misconduct.
Pearce case: simply made up a patient with an ectopic pregnancy and a study about them, two researchers put themselves down as co-authors on that paper, without thinking they should check whether the research was valid, whether it had actually happened.
focus more on QRP and sloppiness (Yes, we must tale action against major fraud but…)
But so-called ‘questionable research practices’ –deliberately sloppy research – are, according to studies, far more common and I think, far more insidious – because they’re not so far removed from the everyday lives of researchers:
“Playing games with authorship, tweaking data a little rather than massive fakery – not as serious as outright fraud but still dishonest and still has consequences.”
Initiatives often concentrate on the so-called ‘classic’ forms of misconduct: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
Again, these are important. But in our case load, in most years other issues have been more common: authorship disputes and issues of research ethics
And then there are the broader concerns about the reliability of research: issues with replication/ verification, problems with peer review, concerns about ‘sloppiness’ in research 9

10. Recurring themes from UKRIO’s advisory service 2006-2016
The ‘there is no problem’ problem: research integrity, ethics, governance and misconduct often not seen as relevant by researchers.
‘We know what we’re doing so don’t need to worry about it’
‘My supervisor takes care of it’
‘This is something to get out of the way at the beginning so we can get on with the real work’
‘Not really relevant to my discipline’
‘Isn’t it just about preventing research crooks?’
researchers can often feel that this stuff just isn’t anything to do with them or they don’t have time for it – this attitude seems to be heavily influenced by wider issues – of research culture, career development, how research is funded and published
Researchers have told us [give examples]
Others: if they are not directly affected by an issue, they’re just not interested in addressing it. A problem if you are trying to address something that doesn’t affect every researcher in the same way. Do we need to do more to remind people of the importance of collegiality 10

11. Recurring themes from UKRIO’s advisory service 2006-2016
Standards for research practice perceived as obvious but in practice they can be challenging to meet.
A common view: Don’t researchers naturally practice ‘good’ research? Aren’t standards for research practice self-evident? Isn’t this stuff obvious?
Recurring theme in enquiries to UKRIO: researchers encountering challenges they feel ill-equipped to address.
Are we teaching researchers what they need to know or are they just picking things up as they go along?
Rather contradictory way that researchers can view guidance or requirements for research practice regardless of the source: standards seem obvious but often in practice they’re not, they’re confusing or challenging to meet
On the one hand, we’ve often heard that standards just state the obvious [give the thinking]
But this conflicts with the growing body of evidence that misconduct and questionable practices are not rare – the Fanelli meta-analysis, studies showing that misconduct seems to be a more common cause of retractions than mistakes
At the same time as saying standards are self-evident, so they don’t need to worry about them, we also find researchers keep on telling us they are running into situations which they feel ill-equipped to navigate.
Authorship is a common example: there are guidelines but how to apply them can be very challenging. And the guidelines can vary in detail and practicality
There are no universal rules
Even within disciplines, guidelines require interpretation, and much is unwritten …
Are we teaching researchers what they need to know or are they just picking it up as they go along? If it’s the latter, are they picking up good habits or bad?
Research is not a digital, yes/no, black and white exercise. - full of nuance and grey areas.
Researchers encounter situations where effectively they have to make judgement calls on what is the right thing to do. Judgement calls to avoid sloppiness, to ensure that their work is accurate, honest, ethical and legal – that it is of a high quality.
How well equipped are researchers to make those decisions, and in a self-reflective and considered way?
Are we teaching researchers what they need to know? Or are they just picking it up as they go along? If they’re just picking things up, what are they picking up? Good habits or bad?
And even if we are equipping researchers to make the right decisions, are they working in a culture that allows them to do so? 11

12. Recurring themes from UKRIO’s advisory service 2006-2016
Don’t be heavy-handed or micro-manage
Avoid bureaucracy, delays or straitjacketing researchers
Avoid stifling innovative or cross-disciplinary research
Be proportionate, non-burdensome
How effective is a compliance approach?
Priority: culture/ leadership that promotes research integrity.
Be proportionate
Researchers already overworked, time-poor, distrustful from initiatives from administrators or central departments – and remember the there is no problem problem
[shift focus from compliance to cultural change; this is a long-term game] 12

13. Research integrity does not exist in a vacuum
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK
[The factors that this report examined and why is relevant to all]
The report is a very helpful piece of work. It highlights some very positive attitudes held by UK scientists about their work and about research in general, and it gives us some evidence where previously there has tended to be individual anecdotes
People recognised, to varying degrees, the problems and challenges highlighted in the report: ‘depressingly familiar’ was the comment of choice.
A minority thought concerns were dramatically overinflated or simply misplaced( I don’t) but even so, that doesn’t mean that all is well and nothing needs to be done.
If misperception is contributing to major disengagement with research assessment, with ethics, if it’s contributing to higher drop-out rates, then that misperception is a problem and it needs to be corrected.
And of course there are many people and bodies saying that these are real problems.
How might we reduce the impact that career pressures – e.g. ‘publish or perish’ - can have on quality and ethical standards in research?
Everyone needs to take action: funders and publisher cannot leave this up to universities
‘Something must be done – but someone else needs to go first…’
Problems caused by miscommunication or misunderstandings still have real world effects 13

14. Leadership, culture and values
Tension between promoting good practice and contractual compliance.
Culture is formed by consent, by ‘nudge’, and by group acceptance.
Build on existing initiatives and promote more sustained and visible approach. Use incentives.
Challenges: changes in how we do research; issue of showing that research integrity is relevant to all researchers; research integrity staff often time- and resource-poor.
Some personal thoughts:
aim is to promote good research practice in a more sustained and visible way – i.e. to make people think about these issues a bit more than they currently do - when they do research, when they develop processes to support that research.
Colleagues have noted that it is ‘easier to build sticks into systems than carrots’ – perhaps it’s time to focus on the carrots?
They’ve also noted that culture isn’t formed through compliance, it’s formed by consent, by ‘nudge’, and by group acceptance – of values, of shared aims.
Incentives are important: we dis-incentivise breaches of good practice, through threats of misconduct proceedings or competency hearings but shouldn’t we reward those who go beyond the norm?
How often do team leaders, PIs, PhD supervisors etc. discuss these issues with their staff/ students? It seems to vary considerably, the same with explaining assessment, providing guidance on good publication and dissemination practice etc.
Reward PIs, team leaders and group leaders who make active effort to raise integrity issues, build processes in their teams that help.
The idea is that good research practice is stuff you should know, so it’s not that appropriate to reward people for simply doing it as part of their own work but if they’re being collegiate / doing outreach work, we could reward them.
Could some sort of ‘Champion’ roles be a next step up for new lecturers and readers?
Under Chatham House rules, a colleague from a major Russell Group university noted they were concerned that problems I develop in research groups when the number of people got a bit unwieldy, say people.
A bit of prompting and awareness-raising, and they now have the researchers meet up and looking at each other’s data.
Some are looking informally at reproducing each other’s work.
Change can happen.
Finally, whatever you do needs to take into account emerging challenges:
Internet-mediated research (particularly social media)
Big Data and Data Ownership
Dropbox and cloud computing
Navigating integrity in international collaborations
Integrity of public engagement
And also remember two key ongoing challenges
Research ethics/integrity staff: lack of time & resources
Researchers: ‘this is not relevant to me or my research’

15. Acknowledgements/ further reading
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK [online]. Available from:
Research Councils UK, Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct [online]. Available from:
UK Research Integrity Office, Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct [online]. Available from:
UK Research Integrity Office, Self-Assessment Tool for The Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Contact UKRIO for more information:
Universities UK et al., The Concordat to Support Research Integrity [online]. Available from: grity.pdf
Universities UK et al., The Concordat to Support Research Integrity: A Progress Report [online]. Available from: research-integrity-progress-report.pdf
Case studies from the UK Research Integrity Office for researchers at UKRIO subscriber institutions available on request – contact us via

16. It is relevant to you and your research 1/2
Protection re. liability and institutional insurance constraints
Enhancing awareness of legal issues (e.g. consent)
Assurance of continuing opportunities to seek funding
Strengthening case for research funding
Gaining public confidence
Facilitating recruitment willingness in participants
Helping research students understand the issues
Bringing on next generation of scientists with integrity
Encouraging collegiality around standards
Collaborative research: ‘making sure you’re all on the same page’ – with different teams, organisations, countries, etc.

17. It is relevant to you and your research 2/2
Halting ethical 'drift‘ and keeping up with developments in ethics
Supporting reasoning around new challenges/ methods/ topics
Protecting academic freedom in institutions
The moral case
Borderline between some questionable practices and normal / sloppy practice can be fine … so even honest researchers need training and a good understanding to avoid problems
Conventions for research often set by others – e.g. regulators, funders and journals –so researchers need to be taught the ‘rules’ and can’t necessarily work them out for themselves
Sustaining and enhancing quality and ethical standards: research must not only be honest but must be seen to be honest