As heads of funding bodies for medical research, we are concerned that questionable practices among researchers seem to be becoming more prevalent. Although these do not meet current definitions of misconduct, they can still distort biomedical science and cause irreproducibility — with potentially critical consequences for policies and patients.
For example, researchers may cut corners by withholding methodological details or by failing to disclose data for independent scrutiny. Inadequate training can also be responsible for false conclusions arising from flawed experimental design, methodology or statistical analysis. Some countries, including Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, have a category for these — 'poor conduct'. This must be addressed if proved, even though it is less egregious than research misconduct.
International funding bodies, informally convening with heads of international biomedical research organizations, have agreed to undertake a worldwide analysis of definitions of different types of misconduct and the policies used to tackle them. This should help to harmonize standards of research rigour and integrity globally, for the ultimate benefit of patients.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, W. Stamp out shabby research conduct. Nature 519, 158 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/519158a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/519158a
This article is cited by
-
The IMPACT framework and implementation for accessible in silico clinical phenotyping in the digital era
npj Digital Medicine (2023)
-
Assessment of the impact of EHR heterogeneity for clinical research through a case study of silent brain infarction
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2020)
-
Use of semantic workflows to enhance transparency and reproducibility in clinical omics
Genome Medicine (2015)