Good R&I Practices
This section clarifies the University’s expectations concerning good R&I practices.
First, information relevant to all researchers is presented.
Second, information relevant to a significant proportion of researchers is presented.
Case studies, written by academics from the University’s Faculties, illustrate the breadth of challenges that can arise when undertaking R&I activities.
The University acknowledges the pressures facing researchers and believes that the practices outlined here are reasonable, can be upheld consistently, and that applying them facilitates the achievement of excellent R&I. Good R&I practices are categorised either as minimal acceptable practices, that the University expects to be followed, or as higher practices that the University expects its researchers to aspire to. The University is confident its researchers aspire to display the highest standards of research integrity.
Where an appropriate course of action is not straightforward the GRIP Policy and, where relevant, applicable legislation or regulation or the policies of professional bodies and learned societies should be consulted. Recognising that researchers are professionals, but that professional expertise has its limitations, where necessary researchers should seek advice and/or support from others, discussing with them the dilemma before taking action.
The GRIP Policy cannot attempt to prescribe practices for every scenario in every discipline. Nor does the GRIP Policy seek to formalise practices, since a quality culture that has shared values and expectations and which practices informal regular ways of facilitating communication, participation and discussion within a discipline can be very effective. The GRIP Policy provides a tool to aid decision-making and stimulate discussion about existing practices.
The following issues should be considered from the beginning, and throughout the R&I project’s lifetime:
- recognising that R&I projects cannot always be planned in detail from the outset, an outline plan, which may include a data management plan, should be drawn up to describe the project’s operational process and timetable;
- where appropriate, the project’s approach to public engagement and creating public benefit should be explicit;
- potential or real conflicts of interest should be declared and, where necessary, managed;
- potential risks to reputation should be identified, and steps taken to manage and minimise them (the reputation of the University, the Faculty, the Department and the individual researcher for financial probity, integrity, honesty, professionalism)
- for collaborative R&I, an early agreement should be put in place about the roles and responsibilities of researchers involved in a R&I project, and the nature and manner for communications between all involved. An agreement provides an objective process that clarifies what researchers can expect from each other (including who does what and timescales);
- for collaborative R&I, transparent criteria for apportioning authorship, acknowledgements and intellectual property rights (IP rights) should be agreed as early as practical (Research Councils UK requires collaborative agreements to be drawn up);
- for collaborative R&I, the publication strategy should be explicit and agreed by all involved;
- where applicable, risks to people and/or animals and/or the environment and/or to cultural objects should be identified wherever possible, and steps taken to manage and minimise risks;
- all of the above should be transparent and explicit, and should ideally be available to new staff at the time of their recruitment.
1 INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ALL RESEARCHERS
2 INFORMATION RELEVANT TO A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF RESEARCHERS