Recommendations & Conclusions
28 items
1
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted
Although qualitative evidence indicates a potentially substantial scale of research integrity issues in the UK, there is a lack of quantitative evidence, including on the relative significance of the different causes of problems. This can only hamper efforts to evaluate damage being caused to the UK research sector in terms …
Government response. The government states that the newly established UKRI Committee on Research Integrity (UK CORI) has a role in improving the evidence base on research integrity, thereby addressing the identified lack of quantitative data.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
2
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Not Addressed
Though the specific problems faced differ, all research disciplines are affected by the systemic issues that limit reproducibility. The established view that issues are concentrated in the social and medical sciences is outdated and tackling reproducibility challenges should be a priority in every research field, regardless of discipline and methodology.
Government response. The government's response highlights the variability in reproducibility requirements and practices across different research fields funded by UKRI, without directly addressing the committee's call for tackling reproducibility to be a priority in every field.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
3
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Deferred
Despite significant delays, we welcome the establishment of UK Committee on Research Integrity (UK CORI) as a potential answer to existing research integrity challenges. We ask UK CORI to commit to produce an annual state of the nation report on research integrity, including reproducibility, issues. These reports should contain a …
Government response. The response does not cover those recommendations which are addressed to UKCORI, who will respond separately.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
4
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Deferred
It is disappointing that UK CORI’s recently published strategy did not mention reproducibility, especially since our inquiry highlighted that this is a major research integrity issue. UK CORI should make sure reproducibility challenges are given due attention and not overlooked in deference to other pressing research integrity issues. UK CORI …
Government response. The response does not cover those recommendations which are addressed to UKCORI, who will respond separately.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
5
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Deferred
The increased application of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research presents a challenge to traditional research methods. The UK Committee on Research Integrity (UK CORI) should specifically: investigate the impact of deploying AI— and other increasingly complex software—on reproducibility in research; consider whether specialised action is needed; and set out …
Government response. The response does not cover those recommendations which are addressed to UKCORI, who will respond separately.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
6
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Acknowledged
Whilst significant reproducibility challenges are faced in research, to refer to the sum of these issues as a “crisis” risks detracting from the many successes of the UK’s scientific research base. Nonetheless, there is need for action to address the significant problems caused by the prevalence or reproducibility problems in …
Government response. The government acknowledges the need for action on reproducibility challenges, highlighting existing efforts like the R&D People and Culture Strategy and the Future Research Assessment Programme to strengthen research culture and integrity without committing to new specific actions.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
7
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Rejected
The UK’s lacks an established infrastructure for responding to research misconduct cases. The UK Government should lead on a co-produced framework with the UK Reproducibility Network, UKRIO and UK CORI, which sets out the roles and expectations for key actors when cases of misconduct are identified.
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation to lead on a co-produced framework for responding to research misconduct cases, asserting that government should not investigate misconduct and that primary responsibility lies with research organisations.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
8
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Rejected
The UK Government should assess the benefits that an additional body, set up to investigate malpractice, could bring to the UK’s research integrity governance architecture.
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation to assess creating a new body for investigating research malpractice, stating it is not the government's role and that primary responsibility lies with research organisations.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
9
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted
Most reproducibility issues are, in the main, not the result of deliberate bad practice. Many of the incentives faced by individuals conducting research act against reproducibility. Whilst individuals must take responsibility for conducting work which prioritises robust analysis and transparency, and for promoting the importance of reproducibility within their research …
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation, stating that UKRI is already supporting the research community in promoting integrity and reproducibility through various initiatives. These include shifting incentives via narrative CVs, changes to the REF process, hosting a research resource hub, …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
10
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Research institutions should model a culture of reproducibility by managing inordinate pressures on academics and encouraging the prioritisation of reproducibility in research outputs. This extends to encouraging openness around mistakes and their correction. In collaboration with the Higher Education Sector, Universities UK should implement a coordinated policy on minimum protected …
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation, stating it does not require a formal response from the government on some aspects. It highlights UKRI's extensive existing work to shift incentives in the research system, including changes to the REF process and …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
11
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Statistical experts and software developers are insufficiently recognised and renumerated within the university research sector. Funders and universities should develop dedicated funding for the presence of statistical experts and software developers in research teams. In tandem, universities should work on developing formalised, aspirational career paths for these professions.
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation, agreeing on the need for better recognition of statistical experts and software developers and citing existing UKRI initiatives. However, it states there is insufficient evidence that new dedicated funding streams would be more beneficial …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
12
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Acknowledged
Research funders should implement stronger tests for the presence of adequate software and statistical skills within research teams at the outset of a funding application. Where these skills are perceived to be lacking, UKRI should consider the feasibility and cost of offering a dedicated methodological support system to research teams.
Government response. The government accepts the recommendation but provides no specific details on how it will implement stronger tests for software/statistical skills or consider a dedicated methodological support system for research teams.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
13
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Acknowledged
Currently there is insufficient attention placed on reproducibility and research integrity training for university students and research professionals. Greater emphasis should be placed on the importance of reproducibility and research integrity in education and training at undergraduate, postgraduate and early career researcher stages. Part of this training at the undergraduate …
Government response. The government accepts the recommendation, stating UKRI's Collective Talent Funding programme and existing Doctoral Training Centres already aim to address the need for high-quality training in research integrity and reproducibility. However, it does not commit to new specific actions regarding …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
14
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted
Institutions should incorporate mandatory reproducibility training and professional development plans for researchers across the course of their career. (Paragraph 83) Reproducibility and Research Integrity 51
Government response. The government accepts the recommendation, stating UKRI's Collective Talent Funding programme and its Doctoral Training Centres and Partnerships already aim to provide high-quality, consistent development and training for researchers across different career stages, supporting skill development for doctoral students.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
15
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Short-term research grants place restrictive limitations on researchers, which can be to the detriment of research integrity and reproducibility. UKRI should consult with a representative sample of researchers to understand whether their grants allow them sufficient time and funding to do the work needed for ensuring their research is reproducible. …
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation, stating UKRI already funds a range of long-term projects and believes changing incentives is crucial beyond just grant length. While committed to continuing stakeholder work and experimenting with funding approaches, it does not explicitly …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
16
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Rejected
Uncertainty in the academic job market, especially at earlier career stages, acts as a strong additional disincentive against the prioritisation of reproducibility by researchers. Research funders, including UKRI, should work to impose a three-year minimum contract for post-doctoral researchers in universities. (Paragraph 89) Solving reproducibility challenges which emerge in the …
Government response. The government explicitly does not accept the recommendation to impose a three-year minimum contract for post-doctoral researchers in universities.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
17
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
The trend towards blanket open access in the communication of scientific outputs is positive. UKRI and other research funders should continue to implement open access policies until this figure reaches 100%, by the end of 2025 at the latest.
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation, supporting the aspiration for 100% open access and detailing UKRI's existing policy and its expansion to monographs from January 2024. However, it notes complexities in implementation requiring action from various stakeholders, implying a lack …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
18
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Currently, research outputs are frequently published without an associated link through to their open-source data and code. This prevents other researchers assessing work for its reproducibility. In all bar the most exceptional ethical and legal situations, researchers should share their research data and code alongside published outputs.
Government response. The UKRI open access policy seeks to ensure that research articles, monographs, book chapters and edited collections that acknowledge its funding are made freely accessible. UKRI welcomes and supports the aspiration for 100% of UK research articles to be open …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
19
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Journals should collectively encourage researchers to employ the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets) principles within their research and should mandate the deposition of research data in open- access repositories alongside the publication of research outputs.
Government response. The UKRI open access policy seeks to ensure that research articles, monographs, book chapters and edited collections that acknowledge its funding are made freely accessible. UKRI welcomes and supports the aspiration for 100% of UK research articles to be open …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
20
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Acknowledged
We welcome UKRI’s use of data management plans. A continued emphasis on their importance as a condition of research funding is necessary.
Government response. The government accepts, affirming that data management plans remain an important requirement and UKRI will be considering how to further enhance their utility as part of policy and funding application requirement reviews.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
21
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Providing adequate funding for replication studies is an important precondition for ensuring researchers have the resources necessary to conduct them. UKRI should learn from its Dutch equivalent, NWO, by developing a pilot programme to fund replication studies.
Government response. The government partially accepts, stating UKRI will learn from NWO's pilot but does not commit to developing its own. They highlight existing funding mechanisms for replication studies and will consider increasing focus on metascience through a new caucus.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
22
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Deferred
Aside from some notable exceptions, publishing routes for negative and confirmatory findings are not pursued thoroughly enough by the scholarly publishing industry. Publishers should review their journal portfolios to ensure that there are sufficient options for the publication of negative and confirmatory science, in line with the proportion of submissions …
Government response. The government partially accepts, welcoming the concept of registered reports for enhancing reproducibility but stating that further evaluation of their costs and benefits is needed. UKRI will continue to facilitate discussions and contribute to addressing challenges in this area.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
23
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Publishers have a vital role in the maintenance of the scholarly record. Publishers should support academics who report issues with published research in their journals and should commit to timely publication of research error corrections and retractions where necessary—in our view this process should not take longer than two months. …
Government response. The government welcomes the support from the Committee for increasing the use of registered reports to enhance reproducibility, however further evaluation of the costs and benefits of registered report partnership models is needed.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
24
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted
Reward structures in academia disincentivise reproducibility by placing disproportionate value on secured funding and frequent publication in prestigious journals.
Government response. The government partially accepts, explaining that UKRI has an extensive portfolio of ongoing work to shift incentives in the research system, including narrative CVs, changes to the REF, funding for the UK Reproducibility Network, and supporting the UK Committee on …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
25
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
The Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP) is consulting on reforms for the assessment of UK higher education research. It should review the Research Excellence Framework assessment criteria to assure that transparency is a prerequisite of top- scoring research. It should also consider the effects of removing ‘originality’ from the top …
Government response. The government partially accepts, stating that decisions on the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) fall to funding bodies, but the new framework will include assessment of integrity, openness, transparency, and research reproducibility, with detailed criteria developed in 2024.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
26
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Researchers should be assessed on the broader contributions to their academic field, including time spent conducting voluntary peer review and promoting reproducibility and research integrity. Funders, led by UKRI, should move towards the exclusive use of the ‘resume for researchers’ format in funding calls by 2025.
Government response. The government partially accepts, declining to commit all funders to the exclusive use of the R4RI format by 2025. However, UKRI is committed to adopting R4RI across its own funding opportunities by the end of 2023 and is working with …
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
27
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Accepted in Part
Peer review should not be viewed as a binary measure of quality versus unreliability for published papers. There is a wide range of competency, depth, and rigour in the analyses carried out during peer review as time-poor academics often do not have time to conduct detailed scrutiny. Where possible, journals …
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation by welcoming the support for increasing the use of registered reports to enhance reproducibility, but notes that further evaluation of the costs and benefits of registered report partnership models is needed.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
28
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Rese…
Acknowledged
The ‘registered report partnership model’ offers a good opportunity for researchers to have their methodologies peer reviewed at an early stage in the research process, allowing researchers to incorporate feedback into their research plans. Within this model, funding and the principles for a study are agreed concurrently, with a guarantee …
Government response. The government partially accepts the recommendation to offer a 'registered report partnership model' but provides no specific details on what aspects are accepted or how this will be implemented.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology