Statement on Questionable Research Practices

1.1. The purpose of this Statement is to set out how the concept of Questionable Research Practices interacts with the University Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure. It clarifies the University’s understanding that some actions investigated under this Policy and Procedure are simple errors or the result of misunderstandings, and reaffirms the University commitment to handling such actions fairly and proportionally, not seeking to unduly punish those who have made mistakes and identifying further learning opportunities where these exist.

1.2. This Statement is developed in line with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and helps to fulfill our responsibilities under Commitment 4: Questionable research practices and potential research misconduct.

2.1 In the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (Annex A: Definitions), Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) are defined as “minor infractions or research practices, including avoidable errors, which fall short of the definition of intentional research misconduct”. Such actions may be a result of a lack of knowledge or attention, and may not be a result of a deliberate attempt to deceive.

2.2. Under the University of York Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure, research misconduct is defined as “behaviours or actions that fall short of the standards of ethics, research and scholarship required to ensure that the integrity of research is upheld”. This encompasses actions which may, when investigated, be best understood as QRPs. The Policy and Procedure sets out how allegations of research misconduct are assessed and investigated, and includes provision for allegations which are determined to relate to poor practice rather than misconduct.

3.1. This Statement supplements the Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure and clarifies the University of York position. It should be read in conjunction with the Policy and Procedure.

3.2. The University recognises that some actions which are investigated under the Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure do not meet the threshold of research misconduct (either due to their minor nature or because they relate to poor practice), but do require action to address or mitigate. These are considered to be QRPs.

3.3. Assessing the category under which an action falls often requires further investigation and consideration of the nuance involved, and as such it is appropriate to utilise the Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure to review and assess all allegations received. This should be done with respect to the principle of ‘no detriment’ outlined in section 4 of the Policy and Procedure, which specifies that
those involved in an investigation will have no action taken against them until the allegation(s) have been upheld, and that those alleging research misconduct in good faith will not face sanctions.

3.4. Where actions are determined to fall in the category of QRPs, this should be noted at the conclusion of the Receipt of Allegations Stage (5.1.12(c)), Initial Investigation Stage (5.2.10(c)) or the Full Investigation Stage (5.3.13(c)).

4.1. QRPs should be addressed where identified. This may be through the following methods:

(a) Requirements to attend further training or repeat previous training.
(b) Exploration of issues and perspectives through mediation or facilitated
conversations.
(c) Provision of formal or informal support, such as mentorship or additional
guidance.
(d) Other mitigations as necessary, depending on the specifics of the case.

4.2. These next steps should be recorded as relevant at the conclusion of the investigation.

4.3. Where QRPs are identified, these should be handled with the same thoroughness and care, as in the case of more serious breaches. As with the Outcomes and Reporting stage of the Research Misconduct Policy and Procedure, steps should be taken as relevant to ensure that the reputations of those concerned are protected, and that any research outputs are corrected where necessary.

 

Approval body:	University Research Committee
Policy Owner:	Professor Sarah Thompson, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research
Responsible Service:	Directorate of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange (Policy, Integrity and Performance Office)
Policy Manager:	Policy Officer (Integrity), Policy, Integrity and Performance Office
External regulatory and/or legal requirement addressed:	UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity
Equality Impact Assessment:	N/A
Approval date:	TBC
Effective from:	TBC
Date of next review:	TBC