Integrity bitesize

Research integrity refers to the factors that shape good research practice and ensure we can trust the research record. It encompasses honesty in all aspects of research, accountability in the conduct of research, professional courtesy and fairness in working with others, and good stewardship of research on behalf of others.

To learn more about the related topics of research ethics and research governance at LJMU please visit the LJMU Research Ethics and Governance website.

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity outlines five commitments UK research organisations should adhere to:

1. Maintaining the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research
2. Ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal, and professional frameworks, obligations, and standards
3. Supporting a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity
4. Using transparent, robust, and fair processes to handle allegations of misconduct
5. Working together to strengthen the integrity of research

The LJMU Policy for Alleged Misconduct in Research and Knowledge Exchange defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting results of research and deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviations from accepted practice in carrying out research or knowledge exchange activity.

The activities that comprise research misconduct include but are not limited to:

• Fabrication: making up data or results.
• Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing/omitting data.
• Plagiarism: using others' ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Misrepresentation: of data, interests, qualifications, or involvement.
• Breach of duty of care: to research subjects, the environment, or cultural heritage.
• Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct: including attempts to cover up misconduct or reprisals against whistleblowers.

Misconduct in research and knowledge exchange will not normally include honest and reasonable error, or honest and reasonable differences of interpretation or judgement in the collection, evaluation or reporting of research results.

Conflicts of interest should be:

• Managed appropriately according to institutional and relevant policies.
• Identified early in the research process. It is the responsibility of all researchers to identify and declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest. They will need to be reviewed regularly because conflicts may change or emerge throughout the research process.
• Declared transparently to relevant parties such as funders, collaborators, or publishers. These entities will have rules for disclosing conflicts of interest in publications and presentations.

Researchers' responsibilities include:

• creating a data management plan before beginning research to ensure data is collected ethically and legally
• storing data securely with appropriate access controls
• maintaining accurate and complete records
• preserving data for the period required by your funders or the institution, whichever is longer
• considering data sharing where appropriate and in line with FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable)

Please consult the LJMU Research Data Management Policy for full guidance.

Set out in full in the LJMU Code of Practice for Research and Knowledge Exchange, authorship should be:

• based on substantial intellectual or practical contributions to the work
• agreed upon early in the research process jointly by all members of the research team
• inclusive of all who meet authorship criteria according to discipline-specific conventions and journal requirements
• exclusive of those who do not meet criteria (guest/gift authorship is inappropriate)
• accompanied by appropriate acknowledgement for contributors who don't meet authorship criteria

The Committee on Public Ethics provides guidance on ethical peer review. The guidance supplies advice on:

• declaring conflicts of interest and declining to review when appropriate
• maintaining confidentiality of manuscript contents
• providing constructive, fair, and timely feedback
• not using information from manuscripts under review for personal advantage
• respecting diverse perspectives and approaches
• focusing on scientific merit rather than personal preferences
• being transparent about limitations in expertise

International collaborations should:

• consult with the Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation team in Research and Innovation Services for support addressing intellectual property rights issues constructively
• identify and address differences in regulatory frameworks at an early stage, applying the higher standard where regulations differ.
• develop clear agreements on research integrity expectations; you will need to consider cultural differences while maintaining the core integrity principles outlined in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity
• establish shared protocols for data sharing and management and agree on mechanisms for addressing potential misconduct.
• ensure appropriate ethics approvals in all relevant jurisdictions

Interdisciplinary research can involve differences in disciplinary norms. Researchers can:

• speak together to acknowledge and respect differing disciplinary norms and practices
• agree research processes together to ensure appropriate methodological rigour across different approaches
• establish shared understanding of integrity standards at project outset and develop a shared vocabulary around integrity concepts
• create integrated ethics frameworks that address all relevant considerations
• consider how to evaluate quality across disciplines, including referring to the LJMU Statement on Responsible Research Assessment
• use the Code of Practice in Research and Knowledge Exchange to address potential conflicts in publication practices

The University is a member of ReproducibiliTea and hosts regular discussion meetings. To address reproducibility challenges, researchers can:

• use robust study designs with appropriate power and controls
• pre-register studies and analysis plans where appropriate
• report all results, not just positive findings
• document methods comprehensively, including software versions and parameters
• make data and code available where possible
• consider independent verification of key findings
• consider the implications of Questionable Research Practices (described in detail below) and contribute to the discourse around replication efforts in their field

When communicating research publicly, researchers can:

• present findings accurately without overstatement and use accessible language where possible
• communicate uncertainties and limitations clearly, including by distinguishing between established evidence and speculation
• declare relevant interests transparently, including highlighting involvement in studies or interested sources of funding
• respect embargo periods and publication ethics
• consider potential societal impacts of communications
• correct misrepresentations of their work proactively and respectfully

In 2020 LJMU declared a Climate Emergency. We have set an ambitious Net Zero target of 2035 for our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. As part of our institutional responsibility, researchers can:

• address the importance of sustainability when preparing funding applications and reporting: design studies to maximise value and minimise waste and consider the carbon footprints of research-related activities, including air travel
• consider environmental impacts in research design, including by working with research technical professionals to share insights together in how to minimise these impacts
• implement sustainable laboratory practices where possible, such as sharing resources and equipment to reduce duplication
• balance open science practices with environmental impacts of data storage
• advocate for institutional policies supporting sustainable research

We are signatories to the Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice.

When working with industry, researchers should:

• consult with the Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation team in Research and Innovation Services
• address potential conflicts between commercial interests and research integrity, including establishing clear agreements about publication rights and data ownership
• maintain scientific independence and right to publish
• ensure transparent disclosure of funding sources and relationships
• consider implications for students and junior researchers involved
• ensure appropriate oversight and governance arrangements
• maintain appropriate boundaries between academic and commercial activities

Building a culture of integrity is complex, balancing individual and systematic responsibilities. It can involve:

• leading by example at all levels of seniority
• making multidirectional integrity discussions a regular part of team meetings, which becomes part of implementing reflective practice throughout research
• leaders rewarding and recognising good practice in integrity, including encouraging everyone to work hard to create psychological safety for raising concerns
• providing researchers and research supporting professional services staff with ongoing training and professional development
• ensuring research-related practices and policies are accessible, understood, and applied consistently
• addressing systemic issues that may undermine integrity
• avoiding a culture of blame, including treating minor issues as learning opportunities, instead celebrating transparency and ethical decision-making

LJMU is a member of ReproducibiliTea, a grassroots journal club for open science with regular group meetings, and research teams are invited to present their work for discussion at a group meeting.

Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) are actions that violate traditional values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research process. They fall into a ‘grey area’ between responsible conduct of research and research misconduct.

While not as severe as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, QRPs can compromise research integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness. They include practices such as p-hacking, selective reporting, HARKing (Hypothesising After Results are Known), inappropriate authorship practices, and slicing up data between several partial publications (‘salami slicing’).

If unchecked, QRPs can undermine and erode trust in research by creating a misleading picture of evidence in the published literature, leading to false confidence in results that cannot be replicated. They can build up noise in the scientific record that obscures genuine effects, undermining further meta-analyses, and potentially leading to premature translation of findings into practice or policy.

Over time, the cumulative negative effect of QRPs on the research literature may be as significant as individual acts of misconduct. However, individual QRPs differ from formal research misconduct:

• QRPs often involve subtle deviations from best practices rather than clear violations.
• They may result from poor training, career pressures, or misaligned incentives rather than deliberate intent to deceive.
• QRPs typically don't reach the threshold of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism as defined in misconduct policies.
• They often operate in methodological grey areas where norms may be evolving or differ between disciplines.
• QRPs may not be explicitly prohibited in institutional policies even though they still undermine research quality.

QRPs in quantitative research might include:

• P-hacking: Conducting multiple analyses until reaching statistical significance.
• Cherry-picking: Selectively reporting favourable results while omitting unfavourable ones or outliers.
• HARKing: Presenting post-hoc hypotheses as if they were specified before data collection.
• Data peeking: Looking at data during collection and deciding when to stop based on results.
• Selective citation: Citing only studies that support one's hypothesis.
• Not reporting all experimental conditions or dependent variables.
• Adding or removing covariates until desired results are achieved.
• Using inappropriate statistical tests that are more likely to yield significant results.
• Rounding p-values to meet significance thresholds (for example reporting p=.053 as p<.05).

QRPs in qualitative research might include:

• cherry-picking quotes or examples that support the researcher's interpretation
• insufficient transparency about data collection and analysis procedures
• inadequate reflexivity about researcher biases and positionality
• over-generalising findings beyond what the data can support
• failing to consider alternative interpretations of the data
• inadequate engagement with the data (for example superficial coding)
• collecting data until findings confirm the researcher's expectations
• misrepresenting the theoretical framework or methodological approach
• selective reporting of negative cases or contradictory evidence

QRPs shouldn’t be seen as individuals misbehaving. Research has shown they are longstanding and shaped by systemic factors:

• Publication bias favouring novel, positive, and statistically significant findings.
• Misaligned reward systems that value quantity over quality of publications.
• Career advancement and funding pressures (‘publish or perish’ culture).
• Inadequate training in research methods and responsible research practices.
• Lack of transparency in research processes.
• Perceived social acceptability of QRPs.
• Insufficient oversight or peer review processes.
• Competitive research environments that may disincentivise sharing and collaboration.
• Limited resources and high workloads.
• Ambiguity in discipline-specific standards and norms.
• Lack of awareness about the cumulative harm of seemingly minor deviations from best practices.

Individual researchers can:

• pre-register study designs, hypotheses, and analysis plans before data collection
• adopt open science practices (open data, open materials, open code)
• conduct and report sensitivity analyses to demonstrate robustness of findings
• differentiate clearly between confirmatory and exploratory analyses
• report effect sizes and confidence intervals, not just p-values
• document all data exclusions and analytical decisions transparently
• seek statistical consultation when planning analyses
• engage with methods reform movements in their disciplines
• participate in team science approaches with built-in cross-checking
• reflect critically on research practices and motivations
• seek feedback from colleagues with diverse perspectives
• use reporting guidelines appropriate to their research methodology

Teams and units can:

• develop specific policies and procedures to address common QRPs in their discipline and promote transparency.
• establish authorship protocols at project start.
• create a culture where questioning methods and results is encouraged by:
  • implementing regular discussion of research integrity issues in group meetings
  • adapting mentoring programs to include research integrity topics
  • encouraging team members to voice concerns without fear of repercussions
  • providing training in research methods and integrity for all team members
• use collaborative tools that create audit trails of analysis decisions
• implement internal peer review processes before submissions outside LJMU
• recognise and reward transparent research practices at a local level. As an institution, LJMU awards the annual Vice Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Research – Open Research.
• adopt appropriate authorship attribution models (for example LJMU encourages use of the CRediT taxonomy)

The discussion on QRPs is evolving. We recognise addressing QRPs requires systemic change, not just individual responsibility. This change is connected to the continual improvement of our supportive research culture rather than any attempt to police individuals’ behaviour.

QRPs exist on a continuum and require proportionate responses. Different disciplines may need different approaches to addressing QRPs, and they are methodological problems requiring methodological solutions. LJMU encourages the development of new methodologies and approaches to promote transparency, including registered reports, pre-registration, meta-analyses, and meta research.