In October 2024, ALPSP hosted a member webinar on confronting research misconduct in academia. The discussion was chaired by Martin Delahunty (Inspiring STEM Consulting) with speakers Ed Gerstner (Springer Nature), Rachael Gooberman-Hill (University of Bristol & UKCORI) and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Martin continued the conversation last month with a follow-up ALPSP webinar, open to all, with speakers Gianluca Setti (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology), Anna Treadway (Clarivate) and myself, to connect the dots from local practices to global standards in research integrity.
Support and training for research integrity were cross-cutting themes
Rachael explained how in the UK, the UK Committee on Research Integrity (UKCORI) is aligned with the Concordat to support research integrity to support and promote research integrity. UKCORI build on the evidence-base that informs their actions and processes, publishing annual statements on research integrity. This work has informed further efforts into developing research integrity indicators to support institutions work on promoting research integrity.
However, cultural differences can significantly impact research integrity and how potential issues are perceived and handled. Ed shared the latest findings from Springer Nature’s ongoing global series of surveys into research integrity, to which the latest results have been added to a new white paper. While institutions often provide training into research integrity this is not always mandatory, although researchers felt it should be, at some stage in their career. Training offerings are typically available online, however, the impact of the training is hard to measure and instil, especially if integrity values and moral character are not developed from an early age.
What are the challenges we face?
Lisa reflected that while training provision and a supportive research culture are fundamentally important, we are in a time where we are seeing an increase in research misconduct and systematic manipulation in the form of paper mills. In addition, misconduct is not just focused on the research itself, but can manifest in poor behaviour and treatment of people, often unreported because of power relations (the theme of the upcoming ENRIO Congress on Research Integrity Practice in September).
Lisa acknowledged that the research landscape has traditionally been reliant on trust and reflected on other impeding factors that stop progress in strengthening research integrity such as scholarly traditions, relationships, business models and reputational risk. This view was echoed by Gianluca as he illustrated the adage of Goodhart’s law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. He illustrated the misuse of bibliometric indicators that has continued to propagate perverse incentives and drive fraudulent behaviour, for example, citation manipulation to boost a journal’s impact factor or a researcher’s career. Gianluca noted that while there are consequences for journals which engage in such practices there can be a lack of consequences from the researcher’s own institutions.
How do we break the silence and connect the dots to bring about solutions?
Lisa argued for institutions to conduct audits on data quality and best practices around publication. Anna explained the role that indexers such as Clarivate play in recognising trustworthy journals based on numerous global standards of quality criteria. She outlined their journal evaluation process and selection criteria. Human decision-making is supported by AI screening which can highlight, for example, sudden changes in volume of published articles or journal authorship profiles that merit a closer look.
I reflected on the strategies that publishers are adopting in recent times, transitioning from reactive follow-up when concerns are raised to a focus on prevention and proactive screening to identify concerns prior to publication. These strategies need to be underpinned by effective, legal frameworks by which publishers can share information across the industry and collaborate together through initiatives such as the STM Integrity Hub, COPE and United2Act. Open research practices also play a central role in underpinning research integrity and building a picture of trust beyond the manuscript.
What’s next for research integrity?
Each speaker stressed the need for all groups across the research and research publishing sector to work together to strengthen research integrity. Emphasis needs to be made on research quality and rigour, with associated adoption of open research initiatives by institutions, publishers and funders. With developments in technology and screening, institutions and publishers are better equipped to spot potential concerns, share information and take a pre-emptive approach to address issues early.
However, such strategies are only addressing the symptoms rather than tackling the root cause. We also need to focus on creating a supportive environment for researchers through strengthening research culture, assessment and training for researchers.
Our discussions also recognised the lack of consequences when research fraud is uncovered, should this have appropriate sanctions as for those who commit fraud? And could funders also play a role here, especially if grant money has been used to produce fraudulent data?
Supporting research integrity will not respond to a one size fits all approach given the different cultures, geographies and disciplines involved. Research is international and multi-disciplinary and moving at different paces. So while we need to creating frameworks at a global level we need to recognise that action on the ground takes place in local settings and networks. Connecting the dots and creating alignment will be a challenge but engagement, openness and transparent dialogue are key to making things happen.
Thank you to the chair and speakers for their thought-provoking discussion and to the organisers for their support.
