Final GARP Guilding Document Design 26-09

Guidance Document GOOD ACADEMIC RESEARCH PRACTICES September 2020

©University Grants Commission September 2020 All Rights Reserved Published by Secretary University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 The expert committee and reviewers provided their candid feedback, which has been deliberated by the authors and duly incorporated, where possible, in line with the scope of this document. The ownership of the final content of the document rests with the authors and the UGC. Cite this document Patwardhan B., Desai A., Chourasia A, Nag S., Bhatnagar R. 2020. Guidance Document: Good Academic Research Practices. New Delhi: University Grants Commission.

Guidance Document GOOD ACADEMIC RESEARCH PRACTICES August 2020 Contributing Authors Bhushan Patwardhan Anand Desai Anamika Chourasia Subhasree Nag Rakesh Bhatnagar

Message from the Chairman I am delighted to present the Guidance Doc- research, which will act as good ready ument on Good Academic Research Practic- references for the audience. This compilati- es (GARP). This document gives information on also covers guidance from several intern - on good practices across the research lifec- ationally and nationally recognized model ycle for quality, impactful, and ethical documents on best practices and framewo- research. rks of research. The guidance will help prep- are the Indian academic research communi- It is important to conduct quality research ty to be at par with international benchma- with integrity and focus on publishing the rks for research quality, integrity, and outcomes in high-quality journals. This will excellence. help in raising the benchmarks of research performance and enhancing the reputation I congratulate the Vice Chairman, UGC, the of individuals, institutions, and the country. knowledge partner Clarivate, and the expert The University Grants Commission (UGC) is group committee members who have work- committed to raising the standards of rese- ed tirelessly to conceptualize and compile arch at institutions of higher education in this document. India. This document reiterates the values underlying research integrity to help create a I hope the academic and research comm- culture of responsible and quality research in unity will find the GARP document helpful to the academic and research community. It guide them towards quality and ethical offers practical checklists at each step of the research. Prof. D. P. Singh Chairman, UGC 4

Knowledge Partner Clarivate™ is a global leader in providing organizations across the world, rely on the trusted insights and analytics to accelerate Web of Science to inform and guide research the pace of innovation and has built some of support, execution, evaluation, and planning the most trusted brands across the inno- decisions at a global, national, institutional, vation lifecycle, including the Web of Sci- and individual level. ence™. Clarivate is on a bold entrepre- neurial mission to help customers reduce the Clarivate has contributed to this report by time from new ideas to life-changing supporting the literature review and compil- innovations. Web of Science™ organizes the ation activities of the existing guidelines, and world's research information to enable providing other inputs arising from academia, corporations, publishers, and Clarivate's experience and expertise as a governments to accelerate the pace of res- trusted publisher-neutral provider of resea- earch. It is the world's largest publisher- rch solutions to the academic and research neutral citation index and research intellige- community worldwide. nce platform. It supports over 95 per cent of the world's top research institutions, multip- It is hereby disclosed that Clarivate Analyti- le governments and national research agen- cs is a provider of scholarly research soluti- cies. Around 20 million researchers, at more ons including Web of Science, EndNote, than 9,000 leading academic and research Journal Citation Report, and InCites, among others. 5

Acknowledgments A document of this nature takes immense Group who made contributions by providing efforts, time, ideas, feedback and above all, valuable suggestions to develop this guid- several brilliant minds with motivation to ance document. The UGC would also like to accomplish something. While sincere efforts thank Mr. Arvind Pachhapur for his continued have been made to call out majority of the contributions in providing structure and contributors, it is fair to say that a significant support to this document along with several number of individuals have made this docu- other stakeholders from Clarivate as the ment possible. knowledge partner. A concept note on Good Academic Research The UGC would like to thank expert peer Practices (GARP) visualized by Bhushan reviewers Raghunath Mashelkar, FRS (For- Patwardhan, Vice Chairman, University mer Director General, CSIR), Gagandeep Grants Commission (UGC) was deliberated Kang, FRS (Former Director, THSTI) and Anil further on by an expert committee. The UGC Sahasrabudhe (Chairman, AICTE) for their would like to thank Prof. Rakesh Bhatnagar, critique and constructive comments that Chairman and the members of the Expert helped enhance the quality of this document. Prof. Rajnish Jain Secretary University Grants Commission. 6

Contents 4 5 Message from the Chairman: Prof. D.P. Singh 6 Knowledge Partner: Clarivate, Web of Science 8 Acknowledgements 11 Summary 14 1. Introduction 15 2. Values Underlying Research Integrity 15 3. Framework for Good Academic Research Practices 15 16 3.1 Research Design 17 3.1.1 Planning 19 3.1.2 Research Questions and Documentation 21 3.1.3 Literature Review 21 3.1.4 Data, Research Methods, and Analytical Approach 22 24 3.2 Conducting Research 25 3.2.1 Research Execution, Documentation, and Data Storage 25 3.2.2 Checks for Plagiarism, Falsification, Fabrication, and Misrepresentation 25 3.2.3 Collaboration and Authorship 27 3.2.4 Intellectual Property 30 33 3.3 Dissemination 33 3.3.1 Selection of the Right Medium for Publication 33 3.3.2 Choosing the Right Journal for Publication 34 3.3.3 Translation of Research 35 37 4. Institutional Research Programme Management 40 4.1 Office of Research Integrity 42 4.2 Governance 44 4.3 Training 49 4.4 Conflict of Interest 5. Mentoring the Next Generation 6. Conclusion Contributing Authors Appendix 1: Reference Model Documents Appendix 2: References

Summary Public trust in research and its output is ments have established several protocols, essential for a healthy modern society. codes of conduct, norms, and principles to Although the research enterprise is self- enhance that trust in research institutions, correcting, this self-regulation occasionally funders, producers, publishers, and products. needs help. Over the years, research institu- tions, professional societies, and govern- Values Although the principal player in the research institutions to establish and maintain a enterprise remains the researcher, the culture of research integrity. This culture must research enterprise is a dynamic global be supported by robust policies, procedures, ecosystem with multiple stakeholders with and processes together with a governance diverse incentives and interests, which are structure to promote these values and not always aligned. In spite of the diversity of address any transgressions in a timely, fair, interests, they have a common stake in and transparent fashion. Research culture is research integrity, based on a set of shared not static; it varies across time and space. It is values that include ethics, rigour, relevance, informed by local traditions and norms, so transparency, respect, impartiality, and although this document is based on a set of accountability (Edwards and Roy, 2017). shared values, these must be interpreted and implemented in accordance with the local It is incumbent upon the stakeholders and the context. Good Research Practice This document provides a general framework Research Design: for enhancing research integrity by focusing on potential threats and good practice at Good research practice begins with problem each stage in the research cycle. Typically, selection and research design. The proposed research misconduct is defined in terms of research should address questions, the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. answers to which will contribute new knowl- However, malfeasance manifests itself in edge, solve challenges, correct errors in the multiple forms and can occur at any stage of existing literature, or develop new methods the research cycle from the initial selection of for conducting such research. A good the research problem, through to the dissemi- research design involves having a well- nation of the research outputs, to fellow documented plan outlining the objectives, researchers, decision-makers, and the public roles, and responsibilities. Research builds at large. upon the work of others, who must be 8

properly identified, and their contributions reviewed and published in high-quality appropriately acknowledged. A good litera- forums, especially in the current scenario, ture review helps do that. It locates the pro- with the proliferation of predatory journals. posed research in the broader research Contributions of all collaborators, funders, landscape, provides insights into identifying reviewers, and others who have directly or data sources and research methods, and lays indirectly supported the research must be out a rigorous and systematic approach to appropriately acknowledged. analysing and synthesizing the evidence to support the research claims. Research Management and Training: An Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Conducting Research: can provide institutional support and Good documentation in the form of labora- structure for creating and sustaining a tory notes, research journals, or field notes is culture of honesty and ethical research valuable for keeping track of one's research practice. Although, research integrity and progress. This record of the processes and ethical practice are based on universal procedures, including information on data values, the context matters. Each ORI sources, their quality, storage, and retrieval is should develop guidelines, processes, and not only necessary to document proper procedures for dealing with suspected and research practice but also to address ques- actual research misconduct. Penalties for tions should concerns be expressed about misconduct must be clear and well- potential misconduct or veracity of results. It advertised; misconduct should be addressed is the researchers' responsibility to avoid promptly and transparently with tact plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, or and fairness. Institution-wide research misrepresentation, and to report such misde- management systems can effectively meanours if they are observed or suspected. manage, track, and report on research activi- Research integrity is also enhanced by con- ties and outcomes. ducting the research in a systematic and methodologically rigorous fashion and Supervising research and mentoring junior carefully drawing conclusions that can be scholars and students is an important role for traced to the research. senior researchers. The ORI has the responsi- bility of raising awareness about the conduct To minimize the potential for any conflicts, of research and providing training for agreements regarding roles and responsibili- research supervisors and their students. ties, authorship, ownership of intellectual property and other arrangements, especially Research integrity is vital for science to thrive. in collaborative research, must be clarified at The values articulated here can form a sound the outset. foundation for a research culture that empha- sizes integrity in the daily practice of every Dissemination: researcher. It is the researchers' responsibility to dissemi- nate the research in full. It should be peer- 9



1 Introduction It is critical for the advance of scientific research that the research community pur- The integrity of the research enterprise rests sues novel, influential, and relevant research. on honesty and trust (OECD, 2015). According Research quality, benefits, and integrity are to the US National Institutes of Health, highly interdependent. Therefore, while (Grants.nih.gov., 2018), “Research integrity maintaining high research quality is vital, it is includes: equally important that research is conducted in a culture that supports honesty and integ- 4 Use of honest and verifiable methods in rity to ensure the highest standards of ethical proposing, performing, and evaluating practice and behaviour. research. There is ever-increasing pressure to demon- 4 Reporting research results with particular strate societal or economic impact of science attention to adherence to rules, regula- coupled with the potential for monetary gain. tions, and guidelines. To seek even the smallest advantage, the temptation to come close to, and perhaps 4 Following commonly accepted profes- cross, ethical boundaries is very strong. sional codes or norms.” Given the high stakes, there is concern about the stability of the ethical foundations Research is, by and large, a self-regulating and integrity of the research enterprise. and self-policing process wherein research- Wellcome conducted a voluntary survey of ers conduct and present their research respondents from all over the world, but without falsification and fabrication, giving mainly from the UK. The findings (Wellcome credit to other scholars for their ideas when Trust Research Culture Report, 2020) indi- and where such credit is due. However, cated that researchers felt intense pressure research also has aspects of competition, to publish, with scant value placed on how including an emphasis on priority claims. the results were achieved. Prestige has become associated with research excellence and high achievement; it This problem of scholarly wrongdoing is has become a high-value undertaking in which intellectual success frequently leads to commercial success (Stephan, 2012). 11

compounded by the recent rapid increase in on the other hand, misconduct such as data the number of research publications in fabrication, falsification of results, mishandling journals of dubious quality. Research publica- of research subjects, and conflicts of interest tions across the world have grown at a com- remain much more difficult to detect and pounded annual growth rate of approxi- police. mately three percent over the past two centuries (Johnson, et al., 2018:5). This growth Researchers, funders, publishers, research in research output has also been accompa- administrators, and other stakeholders in the nied by a rise in poor-quality and predatory research ecosystem have to play a prominent journals, and lapses in ethical research role in this context. It is incumbent upon practice (Eykens, et al., 2019). Two percent of them to have clear and unambiguous the scientists who were surveyed admitted to policies and procedures for ensuring good having falsified, fabricated, or modified data research practices. It is equally important to (Fanelli, 2009). Retraction Watch, along with have a governance structure to ensure that other similar organizations (Oransky, 2020; violations of good practice are addressed in a WAME, 2020), aim to, “Promote transparency fair, timely, consistent, and transparent and integrity in science and scientific publish- fashion. ing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science.” They main- Recently, several efforts have been made to tain,“A database of retractions, expressions explicitly define the various components of of concern and related publishing events” research integrity and ethical practice (See from all over the world, identifying well- Appendix 1). Research organizations, includ- placed and highly-regarded researchers who ing universities, have developed their own have falsified or fabricated data, journals that guidelines for the ethical conduct of research. have retracted publications because of bad Good research practice is not a mystery, what peer review practices, and funders that have is lacking is a culture supported by a sound stripped researchers of their current funding governance structure to ensure that research or barred them from seeking future research misconduct is rare. However, procedures and support (Fang, et al., 2012). It is important to processes to address the violations fairly, note however, that retractions are often acts promptly, and effectively, if and when such of “genuine self-correction and transparency”, misconduct occurs, are lacking. which serve a valuable purpose in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record (Quan- To address such concerns and to promote Hoang, 2020). academic integrity and publication ethics in Indian universities, the University Grants Research misconduct is not uncommon Commission (UGC) created the Consortium (Brainard and You, 2018). On the one hand, for Research Ethics (CARE) on November 28, the ability to electronically scan documents 2018. (UGC Public Notice, 2019). Further, UGC and with the advances in machine learning constituted an Expert Group on Good and text analysis, some aspects of research Academic Research Practices chaired by misconduct such as plagiarism are becoming Professor Rakesh Bhatnagar, Vice Chancellor, easier to identify and potentially curtail. But Banaras Hindu University to study this topic and to offer recommendations about policies 12

and procedures regarding integrity in the 4 Develop materials for training on research conduct, production, and dissemination of integrity, ethical behaviour, and good academic research. This document reflects research practices. This training will recommendations from such experts and from provide the substantive knowledge, skills, similar efforts across the globe. and competencies for a researcher with regard to research integrity and ethics. The The focus of this document is on developing core content of the such training should be and sustaining research integrity within mandatory with additional training an ethical research culture. While this frame- materials reflecting the local context work must be operationalized locally, this being designed simultaneously and document offers recommendations for delivered at the discretion of each ORI. institutions to consider for successfully enhancing a culture of research integrity. In particular, institutions can: 4 Create an ORI as the organizational entity responsible for the implementation of these guidelines at each institution. 13

2 Values Underlying Research Integrity The Office of Research Integrity, ORI, must Researchers should avoid conflicts promote the following values in the conduct of interest in setting research priorities, and management of research: establishing research collaborations, choosing research questions, and inter- 4 Ethics: Research is conducted in an ethical preting and assessing the implications of manner ensuring dignity, rights, safety, the research results. and privacy within the researcher ecosys tem. 4 Independence: Research functions must be insulated from both the appearance 4 Rigour: Research ensures high quality and the reality of undue influence of design, reliable data, the appropriate use funders or other non-researchers with a of methods, rigorous and careful analysis, stake in the outcome of the research. To and transparent reporting and interpreta- promote objectivity, researchers should be tion of the results. allowed independence in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and 4 Relevance: In the endeavour of expanding dissemination of the research and research the knowledge-base and understanding findings. the environment and ecosystem, research advances the short-and long-term goals of 4 Accountability: Research will comply with science and society. both the spirit and the letter of relevant rules and procedures such as regulations 4 Transparency: Honesty is promoted governing professional standards. The through transparency in developing, ORI will publish and make readily undertaking, reviewing, reporting, accessible such rules, roles, and procedures and communicating research in a fair, that will ensure that instances of alleged comprehensive, and unbiased fashion (All misconduct or malfeasance are rare. If and European Academies, 2017). when they occur, they are effectively and promptly addressed in a fair and timely 4 Respect: The process of research is fashion with sensitivity towards the rights aligned with the norms and traditions of all concerned. of society and its cultural heritage, with respect for colleagues, research Integrity in research implies that these values participants, and the environment. permeate every aspect and are upheld by all involved in the research enterprise. 4 Impartiality: Objectivity and lack of bias are the core principles of research. 14

3 Framework for Good Academic Research Practices To operationalize the above values, this reflection. This framework is meant to be the document develops a multi-part framework, beginning of a living document that must be built around the research cycle, to guide interpreted and applied within the specific researchers and institutions in achieving context of each research institution. The research integrity and ethical behaviour. framework focuses on three stages of the research life cycle: The purpose of this framework is to encour- 1. Research Design age discussion and debate about ethical 2. Conduct of Research research practice and not merely to provide a 3. Research Dissemination set of rules that must be adhered to without 3.1 Research Design 3.1.1 Planning Responsible conduct of research begins at Ministry of Human Resource Development the planning stage. The choice of research (MHRD), for example, lists major science and questions and rationale is a critical starting engineering challenges that may be point. The creation of new knowledge and addressed by researchers. Similarly, the translation are important outcomes of United Nations Sustainability Development research. While translation of research Goals (SDG) are another example where comes at a later stage, researchers should researchers can contribute towards creating proactively think about the downstream a sustainable future. impact. Does the project potentially have positive outcomes for society, industry, Once an initial objective is identified, it is country, or the ecosystem in general? The imperative that researchers are familiar with Impacting Research, Innovation and the state-of-art in their domain and under- Technology (IMPRINT) initiative of the take projects that meet their objectives, keeping in mind potential unintended nega- 15

tive consequence of the proposed activities. approvals keeping in mind that they might Researchers should assess the feasibility of need adjustment as conditions change in the the study given resources in terms of exper- future. All appropriate licenses, participant tise, facilities, funding, equipment, and other consents, and requisite permissions should support. be secured before starting the research. Researchers should ensure they are abreast Although the outcomes of research cannot be of all the relevant regulatory and governance planned or perceived in advance, it is possi- requirements. ble to have a well-documented plan in place outlining the objectives, roles, and responsi- Research organizations should support bilities. Researchers must have appropriate researchers with an appropriate research data management systems in place with governance system within a sound research detailed and easily traceable records for and project management framework (WHO, outcomes and milestones, systematic and 2020). rigorous analysis, any ethical and regulatory Checklist for planning research 4 Describe the research objectives and rationale 4 Develop a project plan with milestones, roles, and responsibilities 4 Ensure the viability of the study in view of resources expertise, facilities, funding 4 Keep abreast with the relevant regulatory, ethical, organizational, and other guidelines 4 Seek requisite licenses, approvals and permissions in advance 3.1.2 Research Questions and Documentation Any research activity starts with a research 4 Concise: brief but comprehensive. question. A good research question should 4 Nuanced: with a research design that be: 4 Clear: with sufficient specificity so that it is matches the complexity of the problem being addressed. readily understood. 4 Logical: to ensure that the available 4 Focused: to ensure feasibility given the evidence supports the research claims. available resources and time frame. 16

The sound formulation of the research ques- referred to long after the details are forgot- tion requires: ten. Detailed plans are particularly useful for 4 Consultation with experts. helping newly-minted researchers under- 4 An understanding of relevant theories and stand what is to be done and to describe to potential funders the nature of the research the available data and records. approach and its feasibility. This planning also 4 An understanding of the relevant literature. helps prepare for implementation. Careful planning and documentation also create an Detailed journaling, record-keeping, and evidentiary trail that can to referred to in case documentation are an integral part of the of a dispute regarding the importance and research process. They not only help the timing of a researcher’s contributions to a researcher to keep track of the process but scientific discovery. also serve as a historical record that can be 3.1.3 Literature Review Describing the research questions and The essential steps in a literature review locating them properly in the existing litera- involve: ture are important aspects of research plan- 4 Framing research question in terms of the ning. A literature review involves searching and compiling the literature available on a existing literature. specific topic. A meaningful literature review, 4 Consulting relevant databases and texts however, is much more than a collection of summaries of papers or an annotated bibliogra- for the search. phy of research manuscripts. It involves using the 4 Listing relevant keywords and phrases, as ideas in the literature to ensure an understand- ing of earlier research, their methodological well as known key references. approach, and contributions. A literature 4 Ensuring search results are easily retrievable review also serves the important function of preventing the duplication of research and and traceable. redundant publication (Martyn, 1964; 4 Revising the original research question, if Garfield, 1993). necessary. Researchers must carefully ensure that they rely only on high quality and reliable sources. Before incorporating search results in a review, it is essential to evaluate each refer- ence for accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage (Goundar, 2012). 17

Checklist for information for scientific literature review 4 Is the information reliable? 4 Is the information error-free? 4 Is the information factual? 4 Is the information verifiable? 4 What are the professional credentials of the author(s)? 4 Does the author have the subject matter expertise on the topic? 4 Is the information relevant? 4 Is a clear distinction made between facts and opinions? 4 Is the information biased? 4 Is the information current? 4 Does the information meet current needs? 4 Does the information provide in-depth coverage? Citation analysis is a powerful approach for researcher to relevant literature and so on. selecting articles for literature reviews. It can This process should help the researcher to help quickly identify authors and research refine the search to most relevant sources. articles with substantial research citation Suggestions in the literature for future impact. Citations analyses also help to identify research are often a good source of ideas and research that other scholars have found useful novel formulations of research questions. and have cited in their own work. Citation and co-citation analyses can further assist in It is not easy to critically and objectively identifying articles and scholars that have analyse scientific literature. A senior been particularly influential in the field. Such researcher can guide the junior scholar to an approach is particularly useful for junior fully understand the multiple paths that scholars who are not fully conversant with the have led to the current research landscape, full breadth and depth of the literature and the underlying arguments supporting contem- journal quality. porary understanding, and the strengths and weakness of the methods and data used to Literature reviews must be thorough. One way support or question those arguments. of ensuring proper coverage is using the relevant keywords and phrases. To avoid the In describing the current research landscape, restrictions imposed by keyword-based the literature review serves a dual purpose: semantic searches, citation-based searches are useful. Citation searches that operate on 4 Informs the reader of what the reviewer the premise that two conceptually-related considers to be the relevant antecedents articles will share several references, often and how they inform the proposed research. reveal hidden connections. 4 Provides an assessment of that work by Conducting a literature review is usually pointing to the strengths and weakness of recursive. Reviewing previous research should the preceding literature as perceived by the lead to further lines of enquiry and take the researcher writing the review. 18

3.1.4 Data, Research Methods, and Analytical Approach Once the research questions have been analyses of natural phenomena, human clarified, contextualized, and located within artifacts, and objects as well as behaviours the existing literature, evidence must be and action. obtained to support or refute the research claims. Typically, this evidence is presented The chosen research method needs to be through data. further detailed out. Researchers must also define the target population to collect data A sound, systematic, and rigorous research from and the sampling strategy to be practice depends upon the underlying ontologi- employed for choosing a sample from the cal, epistemological, and methodological target population (Bhattacherjee, 2012). The assumptions. Hence, the method used to statistical technique for analysing the data systematically address research problems vary also needs to be defined, based on the by discipline, the ontological and epistem- research question and the data collected. ological assumptions, and traditions (Kaplan, 1964). These assumptions and the underlying The methods employed to analyse, synthe- logic define the various steps that are gener- size, interpret, and make sense of such data ally adopted by researchers (Zimring, 2019). vary just as much as the sources and nature of the data. For instance, experiments are quite Thus, once the research question has been common in natural and physical sciences and defined, the researcher should prepare a in engineering, however, conducting reliable research design, which serves as the founda- and robust experiments in the social sciences tion and scope of the research project. is not always feasible. The prevalent model of Preparing the research design usually the “scientific method” of reducing research involves accounting for availability of problems into manageable sub-problems resources, skills and time. that has been so successful in advancing research in the physical and natural sciences Choosing the appropriate research methods and engineering does not always transfer is a crucial decision. The methods vary effectively to addressing research problems in depending upon the type of research ques- the social sciences and the humanities tions, the sources and nature of the data and (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Donovan and Hoover, the purpose of the research (Outhwaite and 2013; Latour and Woolgar, 1979). Social Turner, 2007). Primary data sources are science research tends to leverage theory- where the researcher collects the data for the building wherein a researcher observes purposes of the research; secondary data are events, establishes the relationships bet- those that already exist and could contain ween events and associated factors influenc- information that might shed light on the ing the events, locates the common factor, research questions. Primary data are often verifies the explanation in various contexts to obtained from experiments, surveys, focus generalize the explanation and finally, con- groups, interviews, case studies, and other firms the explanation as a theory. Theory- sources. Field research often involves building is perhaps the most difficult aspect detailed observation, document review and of social science research because of the 19

complexity of human systems in terms of the Systematic, rigorous analysis is essential for dynamic interdependencies and interactions producing consistent, reliable results. Over among the underlying causes and effects. the last few decades a lot of attention has The role of feedback and emergence in these been focused on the replicability and systems makes it difficult to develop theories reproducibility of research (Replicability- that are generalizable across time and space Index, 2020). For instance, the work on (Burrell and Morgan, 2017). replicability and reproducibility of social and behavioural science research has its origins in Careful data collection, the systematic use Jacob Cohen’s path-breaking work in psychol- of rigorous methods, and the proper interpre- ogy (Cohen, 1962). Following appropriate data tation of the findings are essential aspects of analytic procedures ensures confidence in the research integrity. Through social media and results and the ability of other researchers to other forms of data on how people lead their replicate and reproduce the results. daily lives, social scientists now have access to data on almost every form of human behaviour and action. This abundance of data makes it important to ensure privacy and ethical use of data. A discussion of the full range of available methods is beyond the scope of this document, however, it is important to keep the following questions in mind: 4 Is the choice of research techniques defensible, for instance, supported by the existing literature? 4 Is the selected method appropriate for the discipline and nature of data? 4 Are the selected methods appropriate for answering the research questions? 4 Will the results obtained by the selected methods be reproducible? 4 Do the selected methods lead to results that can be easily and uniformly interpreted? Interpretation of results should be confined nied by an assessment of the sources, nature, to what the data and the analytical methods and magnitude of potential errors and a frank can support. Ethical research practice requ- discussion of the limits of the data and the ires that the research findings be accompa- analysis. 20

3.2 Conducting Research 3.2.1 Research Execution, Documentation, and Data Storage Robustness of the research results depends journals facilitate in enhancing research on thorough research execution, systematic integrity. They ask their authors to submit documentation, and data quality. Careful research data and make them available for collection of data is necessary not only for other scholars to use who can replicate the ensuring the quality of the results but analyses and build upon earlier research also for maintaining records of collection without having to incur the cost of obtaining methodology. These records are essential for their own data. This ability to replicate analy- judging data quality and for ensuring that ses also gives the opportunity to correct future researchers can replicate the results. errors and honest mistakes and detect potential ethical and moral oversights in the Proper data management has been enhan- published research. ced by the increased computing power and the almost negligible cost of storage. The Guidelines (Pharmaceutical Inspection Conv- “open data” movement is part of a wider ention (PIC): Data Integrity Guidance, 2016) open science effort to make research outputs for data collection are provided: more robust and reproducible. Scholarly Checklist for data collection 4 What data were collected and when were they recorded? 4 Did the research involve an experiment? 4 Were the data collected at different levels of analysis? 4 Were the data on the population or a sub-sample? 4 If a subset of the population was used, what were the sampling procedures? 4 Was the sample set representative of the study population? 4 Did the study design match the purpose, for instance, theory development or theory testing? 4 How was data integrity ensured? 4 Was the data-cleansing process properly documented? 4 What were the specific rules used for defining, identifying, and handling outliers? 4 Were data transformations satisfactorily documented and justified? 4 Were the inferences from the data verified and validated? 4 Were the computational procedures and platforms properly documented? 4 Were sufficient metadata and annotations added in the data files to ensure meaningful interpretations? 4 Were data privacy issues efficiently addressed? 21

Research data and related files need to be 4 Data integrity and security through periodic stored securely during all phases of the back-ups and redundant storage in multiple research process. A researcher needs to media. ensure: 4 Clear data ownership and accountability. 4 Requirements from funders and other 4 Access restrictions with appropriate stakeholders with respect to data storage and sharing. protocols to ensure safety and privacy. 4 Data integrity by using a copy of the 4 Appropriate rules for data archiving, storage and retrieval, including the length original data. of time for which the data would be 4 Careful and reliable data collection, preserved. Data that cannot be easily reproduced should probably be retained storage, and retrieval. indefinitely. 3.2.2 Checks for Plagiarism, Falsification, Fabrication, and Misrepresentation According to the US Office of Science and significant departures from accepted prac- Technology Policy, “Research misconduct is tices. “Knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly” defined as fabrication, falsification, or departing from standard practice can be plagiarism in proposing, performing, or grounds for allegations of misconduct.“ reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (Federal Research Misconduct There are several ways in which researchers Policy, 2000). The terms fabrication, falsifica- knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly mis- tion, and plagiarism are defined as: represent their data and findings. Given the variety of ways in which research can 4 “Fabrication: Making up data or results. be misrepresented and the creativity of 4 Falsification: Manipulating research researchers in doing so, detecting such misconduct is not easy. Research misconduct materials, equipment, or processes, or and bias has become a focus of academic changing or omitting data or results such research (Ioannides, 2020) and a subject of that the research is not accurately repre- study by government agencies (The Office of sented in the research record. Research Integrity, 2020a) and private orga- 4 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another nizations (UK Research Integrity Office, person's ideas, processes, results, or words 2020). without giving appropriate credit (The Office of Research Integrity, 2020a). Data manipulation and image tampering, Research misconduct does not include such as relabeling axes, distorting a visual inadvertent errors or differences of opi- representation of data, or using the same nion; however, generally accepted stan- image to suggest that it represents results dards play a major role in describing from multiple experiments are just a few 22

examples of the ‘creative’ ways in which 4 Copying someone else’s research ideas. researchers have misrepresented their res- 4 Redoing other people’s research and repre- earch (The Office of Research Integrity, 2020b: Case Summary—Yakkanti Sudhakar). These senting it as one’s own without referring to problems have become more common with the original work. the ready access to software, which allows researchers to manipulate pictures of slides The use of automated textual analysis makes and biological specimens in minor ways to detecting plagiarism in the form of copying imply changes over time or represent multiple text relatively easy, but it is more difficult to observations when in fact they are simply assess when ideas or results have been appro- variations of the original picture (Cromey, priated inappropriately. Research often builds 2010). past results, ideas, and methods. Because the reward system of science depends on intellec- Fanelli et al. (2017) have studied biases in tual property claims, it is crucial that research- scientific literature and concluded that efforts ers assiduously attribute credit for the work of to enhance research integrity are focusing on others. To do otherwise violates conventional the right kinds of biases, but the type of biases research norms and constitutes a moral failure and their intensity vary by field and location, (Merton, 1973). suggesting a greater need for focused solu- tions tailored to meet local needs. The authors As stated by Horkoff (2015), the following basic suggest that the effort to root out biases “…has practices should be observed: to be a grass-roots movement. It has to be 4 In general, a person using another author’s something that scientists believe is good for their science to do. Top-down approaches, text, data, methods, ideas, results or formu- such as institutions and funding agencies lations should identify the author and trying to promote best practices, could also document the source. help, but it has to be an agreement among all 4 All intellectual property, regardless of stakeholders. And scientists must believe that format, should be appropriately attributed such efforts will help the results and their to the original owner. science to be more reliable.” (Stanford Medi- 4 Researchers should neither submit previously cine News Center, 2017) published results without proper attribu- tion, nor submit the same manuscript to Plagiarism is the most common form of scien- multiple journals simultaneously. tific misconduct (Martin, 2013). Plagiarism in 4 Conference presentations may be regarded research entails a researcher using other’s as published material and cited appropri- material in such a way that it presents a mis- ately. leading picture of being the researcher’s own 4 References to unpublished work of other contribution. Thus, plagiarism can concern authors should be identified as a personal various aspects of research and its contents. communication or directly attributed to the Chaddah (2014) has discussed three types of author as an unpublished source. plagiarism: 4 Reviewers must be particularly careful in ensuring that the material under review is 4 Copying text from another author without treated as confidential until it has been appropriate permission or attribution and published. Using parts or ideas from acknowledgement. materials under review without proper 23

attribution is not only plagiarism, but is one’s own work, it is usually best to treat it intellectual theft, which places the entire in the same way as if one was citing another evaluation system at risk. scholar’s work. Neglecting to take such 4 It is common for a researcher to refer to his precautions is called self-plagiarism. or her earlier research. Again, when citing 3.2.3 Collaboration and Authorship Research is increasingly a collaborative and Human Services recommends that enterprise (Wuchty, et al., 2007; Adams, “before any work on a collaboration is 2013). Team science often brings different undertaken, there should be some common and complementary perspectives, skills, and understanding of: competencies to a project. Collaborations, however, add another layer of complexity to 4 the goals of the project and anticipated research that is not usually present when a outcomes researcher is working alone (Parker and Kingori, 2016). 4 the role each partner in the collaboration will play Many of the topics discussed in other sec- tions of this document are relevant to collab- 4 how data will be collected, stored, and oration, particularly those that pertain to: the shared need for clarity regarding the objectives of the research project; proper and timely 4 how changes in the research design will be documentation; specificity regarding made timelines, roles, and responsibilities, espe- cially regarding division of labour; intellec- 4 who will be responsible for drafting tual property; and the allocation of resources publications and credit. As with any research task, there is considerable uncertainty at the outset, so 4 the criteria that will be used to identify and flexibility is essential with the expectation rank contributing authors that the initial commitments governing the collaboration are likely to evolve and 4 who will be responsible for submitting crystalize over time. Communication and reports and meeting other requirements addressing issues promptly as they arise are important to establishing strong and healthy 4 who will be responsible for or have working relationships. the authority to speak publicly for the collaboration The ORI of the US Department of Health 4 how intellectual property rights and ownership issues will be resolved 4 how the collaboration can be changed and when it will come to an end.“ (The Office of Research Integrity, Roles and Relationships, 2020c). 24

One of the most contentious areas of collab- aged to give priority to the authors in order of orations is the attribution of credit and their contributions irrespective of seniority. authorship of the research report and subse- However, there is also the question of a quentresearchpublications and presentations. corresponding author. Given that this role involves active correspondence with the There are several prevalent practices for journal or reviewers and other researchers, deciding authorships (National Academy of assigning it to a senior researcher may be Sciences et al., 1995)— including, but not more appropriate. limited to, authors' names being listed in order of their contributions with authors that Whatever practice is followed, the collabora- have higher contributions being listed first; in tors are best placed to jointly reach a consen- order of author's seniority/influence; in sus and decision amongst themselves. It is alphabetical order, and so on. In some institu- important to clarify, in advance, the criteria for tions it is customary to include the supervi- assessing contributions of the individual sor's name upfront whereas in some institu- researchers and how those criteria will be used tions it is either appended at the end of the to allocate credit. The collaborators should authors' list or not included at all. discuss this matter at the onset of the project to ensure clarity and transparency. As a best practice for authorship, it is encour- 3.2.4 Intellectual Property tional importance because of the associated economic value. Assigning intellectual Research in computer science, engineering, property rights, to the extent possible, to the and the life sciences, among other fields, stakeholders at the start of the project is often yields intellectual property of signifi- good research practice. Clarifying these cant commercial value, which can be pro- aspects of the research outputs at the outset tected by patents, trademarks, copyrights, decreases the likelihood of problems and and other forms of guarantees. The proper conflicts arising at later stages of the project. assignment of intellectual property and preservation of these rights takes on addi- 3.3 Dissemination 3.3.1 Selection of the Right Medium for Publication Research findings are truly impactful only form of publications. Researchers must when publicly shared and communicated. present all results, including favourable, Moreover, researchers earn their property unfavourable, and null findings. The honest rights by giving away their findings in the reporting of all findings is essential as a 25

matter of record and to save time for future journals with little or no editorial standards to researchers, who need not redo the work that ensure research quality is becoming one of has already been done. the more flagrant examples of academic misconduct, apart from the commercial An important aspect of research is its dissem- exploitation of the research community. ination. The primary purpose of dissemina- tion is to inform the larger community of the A 'consensus' definition of a predatory journal findings of the research activity so that it is, “Predatory journals and publishers are becomes a part of the scientific knowledge- entities that prioritize self-interest at the base for other scientists to replicate, test, expense of scholarship and are characterized challenge, confirm, and build upon. Often, by false or misleading information, deviation research findings are of interest to others, from best editorial and publication practices, such as practitioners, policy- and decision- a lack of transparency, and/or the use of makers, and the public. Seeking proper aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation outlets and providing the information at an practices” (Grudniewicz et al., 2019). audience-appropriate level of comprehensi- Researchers should avoid predatory journals bility and format become important criteria both as an outlet for their manuscripts and as to ensure that the research reaches the appro- cited references in their research. In this priate audience in the correct format at the context the UGC guidance document “Public right time. Notice on Academic Integrity,” draws specific attention to predatory journals (UGC, 2019). Peer-reviewed journals are among the key channels for research dissemination. Some of the typical characteristics of preda- Researchers often want to reach a broader tory journals are: audience, beyond their academic peers. 4 Guaranteed acceptance of manuscript Commonsense should guide the selection of outlets such as blogs, the popular press, and upon submission practitioner journals by focusing on those 4 No peer-review process outlets that are most likely to reach the 4 Pay and publish, irrespective of quality of intended audience. While formats might vary, ethical considerations do not vary regardless manuscript or relevance to journal scope of the audience or means of communication. 4 No journal website and/or no clarity on Unfortunately, in a “publish-or-perish” world, aims and scope of the journal publication can become an objective in its 4 Use of misleading and inaccurate self- own right, encouraging a market for preda- tory journals and introducing unethical generated impact factors publication practices. The editorial policies of 4 No editorial board publishers of reputable journals are the first 4 Publication of obviously poor-quality line of defense in ensuring research quality and integrity. The recent increase in academic content and/or content that is clearly outside the stated scope of the journal Additional guidance on choosing an appropriate journal for publication is provided in section 3.3.2. 26

3.3.2 Choosing the Right Journal for Publication Submitting a manuscript to an unsuitable publication opportunities are constantly journal is one of the most common mistakes arising in the form of online- and open access that authors make and one of the major (OA) publications. As per the Directory of reasons for the rejection of a manuscript. Open Access Journals (DOAJ), “Open access First-time authors or those who are branching journals are journals that use a funding model out into diverse research areas may be unfa- that does not charge readers or their institu- miliar with the journals in the field. On the tions for access.” (Directory of Open Access other hand, seasoned authors, too, tend to Journals, 2020) publish in the same journals, although new Checklist for selecting an appropriate journal 4 Do the aims and scope of the journal match that of the research? 4 Has the journal published articles of similar nature? 4 What is the journal peer review process? 4 Does the journal reach the relevant audience? Criteria for journal selection Authors should keep the following criteria in mind when choosing a journal as an outlet for their research: Do the aims and scope of the journal match those of the research work? Authors can readily find relevant information on a journal’s homepage under sections such as “About the Journal”, or “Aims and Scope”. Careful review of this information can help determine whether their research might be a good fit for the journal. Scholarly journals are diverse in terms of their content and audience. Their variety can come from several sources, for example, jour- nals vary by their level of specialization, disciplinary focus, and relative emphasis on contribu- tions to theory versus applications of theory. In the natural and physical sciences a distinction is made between a focus on theory versus experiments; in the social sciences a distinction is often made in whether the target audience is academia or practitioners or some combination. It is up to the author to decide on the outlet that best meets the current scholarly requirements. 27

Has the journal published articles of similar nature? After short listing journals based on their broad aims and scope, authors should consider a more in-depth search within the journal with keywords from their manuscript to determine whether the journal has published similar work. An indicator of where a manuscript might be submitted is to be found among its own cited references. Journals that are most frequently cited might be good outlets for the work. What are the journal’s submission requirements? In preparing a manuscript for submission, it is important to review the “Information for Authors”. Journals often specify the type of research they publish. Submissions outside the journal’s scope are often rejected without review. Journals also provide guidance regarding the length of the article and the limits, if any, on the number of tables and figures. Most OA journals also charge article-processing fees, which might play a role in determining where to submit an article. What is the journal’s intended audience? International peer-reviewed journals typically tend to have broader readership than regional journals. The latter may tend to publish articles with geographic or local significance (for example, endemic disease research) and may lack international readership. Similarly, details of a niche research topic are more likely to be accepted for publication in specialized journals. On the other hand, OA journals might be accessed by wider audience, leading to increased discoverability since there are no subscription fees associated with accessing them. Recently, several OA journals have been on the receiving end of increasing criticism over the lack of proper peer review and poor-quality control. A quick check to assess journal quality might be to determine whether a journal is indexed in reputed citation databases. Although, potentially subject to manipulation, the presence of respected scholars on the journal’s edito- rial board is another indicator of journal quality. What is the journal’s impact factor and rank? The Journal Impact FactorTM (JIF) is the ratio of the number of citations to the journal’s articles to the number of total citable articles published in that journal over a fixed period of time. One should also look at the relative standing of a journal in a given subject category based on JIF. The JIF is a journal-level indicator that is one of the many criteria that can be used to determine aspects of journal quality. While there are several journal metrics, the journal “impact factor” invented by Clarivate Analytics in the 1960s, has been one of the oldest reputed publisher-neutral metric trusted by researchers and research organizations worldwide (Clarivate Analytics, 2018). 28

What is the journal’s peer review process? Peer review process should be independent, rigorous, and unbiased. Authors should assess whether the journal provides: timely and comprehensive review of the manuscript; constructive and valuable comments that enhance quality; information on the number of reviewers involved; an understanding of how closely the editor is involved in the process. Are there red flags in journal issues? Diversity of authorship is often a good indicator of journal quality. For instance, the dominance of a small set of authors, or institutions in the journal is a potential red flag. Similarly, an implied promise of publication before submission, immediate acceptance of the articles upon submis- sion or a lack of proper peer review could suggest lack of due diligence and/or improper publi- cation practice. The ORI can develop special training focused on the topic of research publica- tion and dissemination for young scholars and students. Grey, et al. (2020) provide a checklist to promote publication integrity to pre-empt misconduct. The authors write, “the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises publishers to retract articles when there is ‘clear evidence that the findings are unreliable,’ but does not advise on how to determine whether that is the case. Their ‘REAPPRAISED’ checklist consists of the following items: Research governance, Ethics, Authorship, Productivity, Plagiarism, Research Conduct, Analysis and Methods, Image manipulation, Statistics and data, Errors and data duplication and reporting. The use of this checklist, can help to speed up the identification and correction of flawed papers, preventing wasted resources ....” All the items in this checklist are not relevant for a researcher who is seeking to publish or attempting to assess the quality of a journal. However, it is a comprehensive list and a good place to start. Vigilance to ensure that such practices are not rewarded has to be an important aspect of research integrity and ethical practice. Reference management software offer journal match features that can be used to get sugges- tions on a journal’s potential outlets. However, researchers should validate that manually to weed out low-quality journals. Some of the common factors for rejecting a manuscript include (Ali, 2010): 4 Manuscript content does not conform to scope of the journal or the overarching theme of a special issue or is not interesting to the target audience 4 Manuscript style does not conform with the journal style, format, or guidelines 4 Duplication or significant overlap with existing work (plagiarism) 4 Insignificant results or incremental research 4 Improper rationale of the study 4 Superficial treatment of the subject matter 4 Poorly designed study in terms of statistical tests, controls, etc. 4 Preliminary results that lend to speculative interpretation 4 Lack of clarity in writing 29

Journals rely on the peer review process to accepted for publication even in some of the ensure quality and identify plagiarism or most reputable academic outlets (Hvist- other forms of misconduct. Unfortunately, endahl, 2013). identifying research misconduct is difficult, especially when the authors and reviewers The number of citations a journal receives in a belong to a small community where it is to given year, taken against the total citable everyone’s mutual benefit to increase the items it published over the preceding two- number of publications and citations to those year period, determines its Journal Impact publications. This problem is further com- FactorTM (JIF). The JIF provides an important pounded when journal publishers and editors and objective measure of a journal’s contribu- also have an interest in increasing the number of tion to scholarly communication. citations to articles published in their journals, which result in subtle and not so subtle efforts at A confluence of motivations can result in encouraging authors to cite specific articles or various forms of malpractice ranging from journals (Wilhite and Fong, 2012). biased reviews arising from conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors, Authors, reviewers, and journal editors are citation coercion, and inflated author and not the only ones with a stake in enhancing journal self-citations. Building a strong the prestige of a journal via the number of culture of research integrity along with publications and citations. Publishers want to constant vigilance is necessary to curtail such maintain a portfolio of highly-regarded misconduct. However, that is not enough. journals; authors and their employers want Here again, the ORI has an important role to publications in prestigious journals to burnish play in educating and training researchers at their individual and institutional reputations; all stages of their career. Education and and funders are similarly motivated to sup- training can be built upon guidance from port researchers who have published and will COPE, the REAPPRAISED checklist, and the continue to publish highly-cited research in Johnson Report on scholarly and scientific such journals. An extreme case of corruption publishing (Johnson, et al., 2018), among has been noticed in journal publications others (See Appendix 1). The ORI can also where it is now possible to buy and sell co- organize regular discussion groups and authorships of articles that have been workshops to reinforce an understanding and practice of publication ethics. 3.3.3 Translation of Research knowledge has the power to enhance the quality of life and impart positive societal Scientific discoveries are regularly trans- impact to the beneficiaries (Pope and Brandt, lated into applications to benefit humanity. 1997). Public dissemination of the knowledge and products developed by researchers results in “Technology transfer is the transmittal of increased outreach and, hence more atten- developed ideas, products, or techniques tion to and success of science. Scientific 30

from a research environment to one of practi- that basic research is conducted without cal application, and thus is an important proper consideration of the societal implica- component of the research life cycle.” (Pope tions of such research. However, scientists and Brandt, 1997). Focusing on practical prob- have often taken moral positions regarding lems as a source of research ideas and seeking certain scientific advances. Einstein and applications of research that can be quickly fellow nuclear scientists urged that atomic brought to the marketplace are efficient energy be used only for peaceful purposes approaches to technology transfer. Some (Shamoo and Resnik, 2009). Ethicists discuss- good practices to be followed in ensuring ing the responsible conduct of research have efficient transfer of academic research findings labeled certain types of research (for exam- to real-life application are: ple manipulating a germline) to be unethical because it can endanger potential human and 4 Focus on research that is aimed at real other life (Siegel, 2018). world problems. In addition to such weighty ethical issues 4 Use of experimental tools and techniques there are also mundane aspects of research that are time-saving and inexpensive integrity when it comes to the responsible without jeopardizing rigour or high quality. conduct of research. An important part of research integrity is ensuring ownership, 4 Use of widely available materials and recognition, and acknowledgement of intel- components, feasible on a large scale, and lectual property. Additional consideration has pose minimum hazard to life and the to be given to financial conflicts of interest environment to aid manufacturing. when dealing with applications of research, especially when the research is the product of 4 Maintenance of complete records of all collaboration. experimentation, surveys, and so on, so that technologies can be reliably and As stated before, explicit and proper documen- efficiently scaled up. tation of all the rights, responsibilities, and expectations regarding intellectual property With respect to institutional support, the at the start of the research project is ORI can: extremely important, especially when there is 4 Develop platforms or communities that potential for financial gain. In brief, maintain- ing the highest standards of research integ- provide the services, facilities, and networks rity, regardless of the nature of the research, is to absorb some of the risks associated with always a good practice both in the short and commercializing new technology. long-run. 4 Create mentorship programmes that educate principal investigators about obtaining Finally, although most academic research patents and advancing product opportunities does not immediately or always yield direct that emerge from their research. commercial value, fundamental science often 4 Develop collaborative networks between underpins applied science. Basic research is industry and academia. at times blamed for being disconnected from 4 Support the development of university the real-world problems and is also criticized incubators/accelerators. for absorbing a disproportionate share of All considerations that apply to research government funding. integrity also apply to research that is focused on applications of basic research leading to invention and innovation. It is often believed 31



4 Institutional Research Programme Management 4.1 Office of Research Integrity This document provides a general perspec- enforcer, it monitors research activity for tive on research integrity, which must be potential malfeasance and acts swiftly, with operationalized at each research institution fairness and tact, when it notices or has to reflect its own practices, needs, and instances of research misconduct brought to context. The ORI must be an integral and its attention. permanent unit within the research infra- structure of the institution, where it plays a There are resources, governance structures, dual role of coach and enforcer. As a coach, models, and guidance available for establish- the ORI encourages and enables a culture of ing an ORI. Examples of such resources are research integrity and provides training. As included in Appendix 1. 4.2 Governance As mentioned, research has always been a 4 Keep abreast of current good practices for competitive endeavour, but this competition promoting the proper management and is now global and fast-paced. As competition conduct of research. for prestige and funding has grown, there is evidence that the incidence of research 4 Deploy a research management and misconduct has also grown (Fanelli, 2009). monitoring system to keep track of grant proposals, research projects, publications, To cultivate and sustain a culture of research and other research products. integrity, the ORI must: 4 Build upon the principles listed in this 4 Ensure that the research incentives are designed to reward research integrity. For document by developing its own Code of example, incentives that reward high Conduct for its context in alignment with quality research over quantity (Finkel, 2019). its local traditions, needs, and mission. 4 Serve as a resource for sound confidential advice regarding research integrity. 33

4 Develop a checklist and training progra- 4 Whose responsibility is it to report mmes for researchers to familiarize them misconduct? with research integrity, potential pitfalls, and how to avoid and address them. 4 What is the policy on whistleblowing? 4 Who should receive the complaint? 4 Build checks to minimize conflicts of 4 Who will conduct the investigation? Will interest among reviewers. the investigation be confined to the ORI, Each ORI would also have to develop its own handed off to external reviewers, or to guidelines regarding processes and proce- another part of the research institution? dures for dealing with allegations of research 4 Who has the authority to implement the misconduct. In this context, its role would be penalties? to: 4 Define what is fair and timely adjudication 4 Provide clarity regarding procedures for 4 Keep records and document the source of the allegation, how the allegation was addressing allegations of misconduct, for addressed, the outcome of the investigation, example: and the penalties meted out, if any. Investigations must be timely and be con- ducted sensitively (Welpe, et al., 2015). 4.3 Training The research community has responded to 2017). Support for such training from the growing concern regarding research integ- senior leadership of the university or research rity by holding conferences (World Confe- organization as well as one’s immediate rence on Research Integrity, 2020), offering supervisor is an important factor in ensuring training, (SRA International, 2020) establish- that the training is undertaken and the likeli- ing policies, and issuing codes of conduct (All hood of it being a success (Vanderbilt European Academies, 2017) and protocols University, 2020). The ORI should ensure (World Conference on Research Integrity, development of checklists and other training 2010). materials and delivery of that training on a regular basis. To enforce awareness and Education and training are important aspects adoption, the ORI can consider making the of developing a culture so that research training programmes on research integrity integrity becomes a “way of life”, a habit. Not mandatory for all researchers and students only should researchers be aware of what (Finkel, 2019). In addition, such programmes research integrity means, but they must also should lead to a certification based on the have the skills to put that awareness into successful completion of a rigorous course of practice. study. The certification could also be made a prerequisite for receiving research funding or The ORI can play an important role in devel- promotions. oping and delivering the training (Emerson, 34

In addition to a general introduction to To familiarize researchers with the diversity of research integrity and misconduct, the train- the research enterprise, the ORI can offer ing should also focus on the different stages training on topics such as informed consent, of the research cycle and on specific forms of communication (with funders, research misconduct at each stage, as already dis- collaborators, students, or journal editors), cussed. and other topics that are context-specific or pertinent for specific disciplines. 4.4 Conflict of Interest A conflict of interest (COI) arises when a a researcher is called upon to review a grant researcher can derive personal gain while proposal or a research paper. A researcher is acting in an official capacity. Conflict of usually asked to serve as a reviewer when a interest has been defined as: “… a situation in paper or grant proposal is aligned with that which financial or other personal considerations researcher’s expertise. An obvious conflict havethepotentialtocompromiseor bias profes- could arise if the researcher realizes that the sional judgement and objectivity. An appar- paper under review is similar to his or her ent conflict of interest is one in which a research, and there may be some benefits in reasonable person would think that the delaying the potential publication of that professional’s judgement is likely to be paper to gain more time to complete the compromised. It is important to note that a personal research or to expedite it because it conflict of interest exists whether or not might shed favourable light on a product that decisions are affected by a personal interest; he or she might be attempting to bring to the a conflict of interest implies only the poten- market. More subtle forms of conflict might tial for bias, not a likelihood” (Conflict of arise from personal biases regarding the use Interest, 2020). of a particular research method or data source or the way in which the research is In research, conflicts can arise in subtle and framed and approached. not so subtle ways. Conflicts often arise when To avoid potential conflict of interest: 4Declare any real or perceived financial or professional conflict of interest 4Be aware of and abide by the organizational regulations and guidelines regarding the management of potential conflicts of interest 4Constitute and follow a policy of complete disclosure especially with respect to the financial conflicts 4Focus on the scientific merits when conducting a grant or manuscript evaluation 4Undergo training to uncover personal conscious and unconscious biases and exercise constant vigilance 35



5 Mentoring the Next Generation Senior researchers are responsible for train- tant for helping the mentee understand the ing and mentoring students and junior schol- rationale for the rules and how they work in ars. The dominant model for learning how to practice. A good point of departure for dis- conduct research is the apprenticeship cussion about research integrity is a code of model, where junior scholars learn by work- conduct. ing closely with senior researchers. In this model of learning, mentors are responsible With a formal document as a starting point, for instilling the importance of integrity, the discussion can evolve into an interpreta- ethical behaviour, and good research prac- tion of those rules in the context of the tice. lack of knowledge among junior mem- research institution, the mentors' roles and bers of a research team is not, under any responsibilities as well as expectations of the circumstances, an excuse for unethical mentees. behaviour. Instilling good research practices in the apprenticeship model implies that Not all mentors are good at such discussions senior scholars and mentors lead by exam- and this is where the ORI can play a role in ple. It is imperative that they maintain the training the mentors. The ORI can also offer highest standards of integrity and ethical training for new students and junior scholars behaviour and serve as role models. and perhaps facilitate the discussion between mentors and mentees. The relationship between the doctoral super- visor or advisor and students is both personal Researchers, particularly at a university, and professional in which trust plays an serve multiple roles. They serve on commit- important role. Most doctoral programmes have tees at the university and for professional formal or informal statements regarding the societies. They may also be called upon to roles and responsibilities of students and their share their expertise with the larger commu- doctoral advisors. However, knowing the nity of which the university is a part. They rules however, is not the same as knowing voluntarily contribute their time to conduct how to interpret the rules. Discussions peer reviews for scholarly journals and between the mentor and mentee are impor- research funders. Over time, mentors should provide opportunities for mentees to teach 37

and mentor other students. Mentors must 4 give constructive and critical assessments encourage mentees to serve the profession of the candidates' work and professional societies by offering them opportunities to help with research confer- 4 ensure timely feedback, preferably in ences and reviewing papers. The apprentice- writing, regarding progress ship model is particularly well-suited for such training and for imparting experiential learn- 4 assist students with non-academic issues ing. With mentors and mentees working side- and if necessary, direct them to the by-side, mentors can gradually give more appropriate student services offered by an responsibilities to their mentees. institution Even before joining a doctoral programme, a 4 engage external expert help, where student has the opportunity to learn what it needed, to supplement the internal exper- means to be a beginning researcher. Doctoral tise within an institution for comprehen- training, unlike earlier education and train- sive guidance. ing, is about becoming an independent researcher. While one can be taught the The students are responsible to: means of becoming a good researcher, the curiosity and motivation to be a successful 4 know what it means to be a scholar in good and creative researcher comes from within. standing with respect to the rules and regulations of an institution Good advisors, generally: 4 be systematic and rigorous in the conduct 4 engage with students in preparing a of research research project 4 carefully plan and execute research 4 make students aware of ethical research protocols practice and help them comply with the formal aspects of ethical and intellectual 4 follow safety procedures property regulations 4 diligently maintain accurate research 4 guide students through an institution's records rules and regulations that govern the proper conduct of research 4 seek advice of senior faculty or researchers regarding ethical questions and practices 4 provide academic advice, including specific guidance on how to conform to the 4 disseminate findings in a timely manner in norms and expectations of the academic appropriate outlets field 4 present the findings in an unbiased, ethical 4 support students in developing their manner in accordance with the highest career both during candidature and beyond standards of research integrity. 38



6 Conclusion This document provides a framework for good data collection, storage, and retrieval; inter- research practices at academic institutions. It pretation; sharing data and results; present- recommends the creation of an Office of ing and publishing results; training and Research Integrity (ORI) at each institution. mentoring students; and contributing to the Each institution is different and may use this professional community. Another aspect of framework as it best applies to its own con- academic honesty is the proper acknowledge- text. It is hoped, however, that the framework ment of contributions drawn from earlier will help place the research enterprise of an research, fellow researchers, and collabora- institution on a firm ethical foundation. tors. An important role of the ORI is to make appro- It is not always possible to know in advance priate recommendations for defining and when a particular line of research might lead to refining an institution's focus on research undesirable societal outcomes. In instances integrity and ethical practice and behaviour. where the likelihood of adverse outcomes is The value of good governance cannot be high, careful procedures and constant monitor- overemphasized in establishing the ORI, ing are necessary to mitigate such risks. whose activities will be informed by evidence that is open and available to an institution's Unfortunately, self-regulation does not community and beyond. Partnering with always work. Regular training, seminars, and researchers in participatory management of workshops conducted by the ORI, actively the ORI will inspire confidence in its leader- promoted and supported by the senior leader- ship and help the managers of research ship, are potentially effective ways of sustain- achieve their goals in collaboration with ing a culture of research integrity. The ORI researchers. must also have systems for research manage- ment to provide institutional support for Individual honesty yields trust, and trust is research. Research integrity is vital for science paramount for a research community. It to thrive. The values articulated here can form applies to the whole research enterprise, a sound foundation for a research culture that including but not limited to: peer review of emphasizes integrity in the daily practice of research and research proposals; defining every scientist. research questions; seeking and allocating resources for research; conducting research; 40



Contributing Authors Bhushan Patwardhan Vice Chairman University Grants Commission Anand Desai Policy and Assessment Advisor Clarivate Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University Anamika Chourasia Sr. Director, Government & Academic, South Asia and South East Asia Clarivate Subhasree Nag Sr. Solution Consultant Clarivate Rakesh Bhatnagar Vice - Chancellor Banaras Hindu University 42

Expert Group Members Rakesh Bhatnagar (Chair) Vice - Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi Arvind Pachhapur Vice President and Head, South & South East Asia, Clarivate, New Delhi Partha Pratim Chakrabarti Former Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Praveen Chaddah Former Director, UGC-DAE Consortium for Scientific Research Virendra Kumar Malhotra Member Secretary, Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi N.V. Varghese Director, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi Syed E. Hasnain Vice - Chancellor, Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University, New Delhi Shridhar R. Gadre Distinguished Professor, Interdisciplinary School of Scientific Computing, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune 43

Appendix 1: Reference Model Documents There is a good set of reference documents Research Integrity in particular. For ready that can add further insights into Good reference we include a list of such documents Academic Research Practices in general and and few highlights here. International and National Guidelines 4 University Grants Commission, India 4 Korean Federation of Science and Techn- (Du.ac.in, 2018) ology Societies 4 National Health and Medical Research 4The Manual for Research and Publication Council, Australia, 2018 (NHMRC, 2018) Ethics in Science and Engineering (Hwang et al., 2016) 4 European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities-ALLEA (All 4 Australian Code for Responsible Conduct European Academies, 2017) of Research (2018) on Research Integrity (WCRIF, 2020) 4 Research Council, Sweden(Vr.se, 2017 The Swedish Research Council Report on 4 Singapore Statement on Research Inte- Good Research Practice) grity (World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010) 4 Ministry of Higher Education and Science, Denmark (Ufm.dk, 2014, 2017, 4 Montreal Statement on Research The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Integrity — Uddannelses- Collaborations (WCRIF, 2013) ogForskningsministeriet, 2014; The Danish Committee on Research 4 Council of Canadian Academies (Coun Misconduct — Uddannelses- -cil of Canadian Academies Expert Panel ogForskningsministeriet, 2017) on Research Integrity, 2010) 4 NationalAcademiesofSciences, Engineering, 4 The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and Medicine,USA(NASEM,2017) 4 “Integrity and high ethical standards in 44

research, as well as robust and fair representing over one hundred universities methods to address poor practice and in the UK misconduct” (UKRIO, 2020) 4 Concordat to support research integrity 4 Universities UK, a membership organization (Universities UK, 2019) University Guidelines The following webpages contain few exam- 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ples of statements on research integrity and (MIT, 2020) codes of research integrity from universities around the world. 4 University of Cambridge (University of Cambridge, 2020) 4 AustralianNationalUniversity(ANU, 2020) 4 University of Cape Town (University of 4 Delhi University (University of Delhi, 2020) Cape Town, 2020) Other 4 The Clarivate Analytics journal selection self-correction (Oransky, 2020) criterion provides several criteria for determining journal quality (Clarivate 4The Society of Research Administrators Analytics, 2019) International offers certificate programmes on research integrity (SRA International, 4The Retraction Watch to examine retractions 2020) as a window into the scientific process of The text below outlines highlights from some of the international and national guidelines: Good research practices guidelines have during various phases of the research life- been made available by a variety of stake- cycle—planning, conducting research, and holders including government, funders, publishing the results thereof (Vr.se, 2017— associations and think tanks. These guide- The Swedish Research Council Report on lines describe best practices to be followed Good Research Practice). 45

Research Design The Swedish Research Council Report (Vr.se, tionships, collaborations, peer review etc. 2017)and the Singapore Statement on The ethics document of the Medical Research Research Integrity (World Conference on Council UK (Medical Research Council, 2012) Research Integrity, 2010) advise researchers urges researchers to include an assessment to understand thoroughly the state-of-art in of all resources needed to ensure feasibility their domain and undertake projects that will of the study within the available means. not cause societal harm. However, most of Further, all previously listed guideline docu- the guideline documents (European Science ments advise: Foundation, 2011; Wellcome Trust Guidance Document, 2020; Wellcome-Sanger Institute 4 Rationale of the study to be supported by Research Guide, 2020) refrain from com- scientific literature. menting on the wider ethical context of science but focus on research integrity. 4 Well-documented and easily traceable records for clear outcomes and end points. Designing good research practices for cer- tain fields need addressing additional 4 Compliance with all the applicable regula- requirements, such as protection of the rights tory,ethical, and governance requirements. of human test subjects, care of laboratory animals, safe laboratory practices, and 4 All the required licenses, and permissions prevention of the misuse of the research to be secured before initiating research. findings (Irish Council for Bioethics, 2010; NASEM, 2017). For example, the National 4 Appropriate research governance systems Institutes of Health (NIH, 2009) has identified in the institutions. nine core areas of responsible conduct of research instruction which include guidance Several other guideline documents from on conflict of interest, handling of human and India (Indian Academy of Sciences, 2018) animal test subjects, mentor-mentee rela- including those listed above and others from various international agencies prescribe the bestpractices for datacollectionand handling. Dissemination In order to discourage a rat-race for publica- in peer-reviewed journals, there are guidelines tions, and thus to prevent researchers from by the Committee on Publication Ethics publishing in low-quality journals that do not (COPE) (Wager and Kleinert, 2012) and the follow rigorous peer-review procedures International Committee of Medical Journal (“predatory journals”), several regulatory Editors (ICMJE, 2006) for the roles and bodies advise publishing only in high-quality responsibilities of various stakeholders (edi- reputed journals. With respect to publishing tors, writers, others) including peer review. 46

Collaboration and Authorship Contemporary science has developed into a Agreements, which should be embodied in truly collaborative and international activity. the formal documents that establish the The Coordinating Committee of the OECD collaborative project (OECD, 2008; All Global Science Forum recommends estab- European Academies, 2017). A similar state- lishing an agreement for collaborative ment on research integrity in cross-boundary research for responsible conduct in research research collaborations was developed as and describes the procedures for the investi- part of the 3rd World Conference on gation of allegations of research misconduct Research Integrity, 2013, in Montréal, as a within the project. The Committee has pro- global guide to the responsible conduct of duced a boilerplate text for International research. Governance Several government and regulatory bodies When research misconduct is reported, have published a draft guidance mandate prompt and appropriate investigation and that research institutions should have appro- actions are essential as per the defined priate procedures for expeditiously address- process and guidelines (The Danish Committee ing allegations of misconduct and irresponsi- on Research Misconduct, Uddannelses- ble research practices and for protecting ogForskningsministeriet, 2017), including whistle blowers (National Policy on Acad- correction of the research record. emic Ethics, India draft, European Science Foundation; The Office of Research Integrity, Research institutions should develop and 2020c). maintain an ecosystem that promotes responsible conduct of research and research Plagiarism of any kind is unacceptable and integrity through appropriate guidelines and researchers are encouraged to use their novel training (World Conference on Research and original ideas and provide proper Integrity, 2010, 2013). Finally, regulatory and acknowledgement and citations (du.ac.in, government agencies have developed 2018) while referring to prior research work several research assessment and evaluation by self or others. Plagiarism-checking soft- frameworks for evaluating research quality at ware must be used and evidence of plagia- individual or institutional levels (Cagan, 2013; rism can disqualify theses, grant proposals, Hicks,et al., 2015). along with manuscripts. 47



Appendix 2: References Adams, J., 2013. The fourth Age of Research. Nature, 497(7451): 557-560. Aguinis, H., Hill, N.S., and Bailey, J.R., 2019. Best Practices in Data Collection and Preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, p.1094428119836485. Ali, J., 2010. Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. J Young Pharm 2(1):3-6. All European Academies, The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2017. Viewed 29 July, 2020. <https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020- ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf> Australian National University (ANU), 2020.Policy: Code of research conduct, viewed 29 July, 2020. https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_007403. Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks Collection. 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3 Brainard, J. and You, J., 2018. What a Massive Database of Retracted Papers Reveals about Science Publishing's 'Death Penalty'. Science, 25(1): 1-5. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., 2017. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Routledge. Cagan, R., 2013. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Disease Models and Mechanisms, 6(4): 869–870. Chaddah, P. 2014. Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction. Nature News, 511: 127. Chaddah, P. and Lakhotia S.C., 2018. A Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of Research Output in India” by the Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy: 84(2): 319-329. Clarivate Analytics, 2018. The Impact Factor, viewed 29 July, 2020.https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/impact-factor/ Clarivate Analytics, 2019. Journal Selection Process, viewed 29 July, 49

2020.<https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/journal-evaluation-process-and-selection- criteria> Cohen, J., 1962. The Statistical Power of Abnormal-Social Psychological Research: Areview. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3): 145. Conflict of Interest, 2020. Responsible Conduct of Research, viewed 29 July 2020.<https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/columbia_wbt/rcr_conflicts/foundation/index. html#1_1> Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Research Integrity, 2010. Honesty, Accountability and Trust: Fostering research integrity, Electronic Resource, viewed 29July 2020.<http://www.frqnt.gouv.qc.ca/documents/10191/186011/Report+on+Research+integrity.p df> Cromey, D.W., 2010. Avoiding Twisted Pixels: Ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(4): 639-667. Directory of Open Access Journals, 2020.Frequently Asked Questions, viewed 29 July, 2020<https://doaj.org/faq#definition> Donovan, T. and Hoover, K.R., 2013. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. Cengage Learning, USA. Du.ac.in. (Delhi University) 2018. UGC Regulations for Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions, viewed 29 July, 2020 <http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/19092018_noti.pdf> Edwards, M.A. and Roy, S., 2017. Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition, Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1): 51-61. Emerson, J., 2017. Don't Give Up on Unconscious Bias Training—Make it better. Harvard Business Review, 28. European Science Foundation, 2011. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, viewed 29 July, 2020.< https://www.allea.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf> Eykens, J., Guns, R., Rahman, A.J., and Engels, T.C., 2019. Identifying Publications In Questionable Journals in The Context of Performance-Based Research Funding. PloS one, 14(11): p.e0224541. Fanelli, D., 2009. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PloS one, 4(5), p.e5738. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., and Ioannidis, J.P., 2017. Meta-assessment of Bias in Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(14): 3714-3719. Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G., and Casadevall, A., 2012. Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of retracted Scientific Publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42): 17028-17033. 50