[17]

Clinical trial investigators often do not see the full analysis of the whole dataset, and the draft reports are usually written by a professional writer, leading to a further degree of separation of the investigators from the data. These are a few examples of where misconduct can exist beyond the direct reach of the researcher. There is a key question I sometimes ask myself: is there a gap in our perception between initiatives to promote RCR and the apparent increase in proven cases of research misconduct? Is it enough to publish click here and promote guidance on good/best practice, or should there be additional measures to encourage researchers to apply the guidance in their everyday conduct? While heads of universities and research institutes may have confidence in their guidance documents on the RCR and have codes of conduct for the investigation of allegations of research misconduct, they may find it difficult to totally assure

themselves and their governing bodies that all of the research conducted in their institution is compliant with this guidance. Many will trust and hope it is, but the monitoring of research practices and the audit of research processes and outcomes, I would suggest, are not currently sufficient to allow this to be stated with confidence. JQ1 in vivo So what additional measures would be required to 上海皓元医药股份有限公司 allow research leaders to be able to give that assurance to others about their research outputs? I believe we need to do more to discourage and detect research misconduct. While the majority of research-intensive universities and research institutes have good guidance documents, they are not always widely read or assimilated. An increasing number of institutions are requiring researchers to confirm in writing that they have read these documents prior to taking up an appointment and that they will

comply with their contents. There will always be a need to embed the principles of good practice not just in individuals but also in research groups to ensure a high-quality, honest and supportive culture. In addition, I would suggest that there will also be a need for the introduction of measures to monitor research practice to enable institutions to be able to give assurance to their funders and governing bodies that the research is not only of high-quality but also of impeccable integrity. This will inevitably mean the promotion of even higher quality supervision and monitoring by the leaders of research groups and research disciplines, and a requirement that evidence should be provided that it has actually taken place. This monitoring process might be enhanced further by random spot audits of research projects and programs.