Select committee: Science and Technology Committee (Commons)
Recommendation 9
Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Research Integrity
Published 10 May 2023
Paragraph 68
Addressed to Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Science and Technology Committee (Commons) Reproducibility and research integrity All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
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 field, we recognise that aspects of the academic process, such as time pressures and the publication model, act against the promotion of research integrity and reproducibility. Therefore, the research community, including research institutions and publishers, should work alongside individuals to create an environment where research integrity and reproducibility are championed.
From: Science and Technology Committee (Commons), Sixth Report - Reproducibility and Research Integrity (HC 101), paragraph 68, 10 May 2023
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 21 July 2023 (deadline 10 July 2023).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government and UKRI say they "partially accept the majority of the conclusions and recommendations", and where they have not accepted them they point to "existing or planned actions".
- It does not accept the recommendations for a co-produced misconduct framework or an additional investigating body, saying the Government "should not be in the business of investigating research misconduct".
- It accepts the recommendation on greater emphasis on reproducibility and research integrity in education and training, citing UKRI's Collective Talent Funding programme.
- It does not accept the recommendation for a three-year minimum contract for postdoctoral researchers, saying linking contracts to grants "is not a stipulation of UKRI grant terms and conditions" and that research organisations are responsible for employment contracts.
- On narrative CVs, it partially accepts the recommendation but says it is "unable to commit all funders" to exclusive use; UKRI's rollout of the R4RI format "is expected to be in place by the end of 2023".