Research integrity: responsibilities, evidence and follow-up

Evidence relevant to research integrity

In examining research integrity: responsibilities, evidence and follow-up, for research integrity, the formal status of the revised recommendation on science and scientific researchers should be preserved in any public account. The instrument should be used to identify the intended direction, the actors addressed and the implementation measures that remain necessary.

A proper examination of the matter should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. In the context of research integrity, the corrective action should be tested on a scale proportionate to the risk before wider implementation, unless immediate system-wide action is necessary to protect learners.

A narrow control over the intended improvement may create false assurance. In the present context, inconsistent judgement between markers or locations, uncontrolled changes to assessment and weak assurance of authorship or performance may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. For decisions concerning research integrity, adverse cases should form part of the sample wherever they may reveal a material control weakness.

Analysis should make its decision rule explicit. For research integrity, effectiveness is the demonstrated change in the condition the action was intended to address. For research integrity, completion of training, publication of guidance or installation of a system is an output and should not be reported as an outcome without further evidence.

Assurance of the corrective action should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include assessment maps to learning outcomes, marking criteria and calibrated judgement, appeal and correction records, moderation and exception records, and analysis of results and differential outcomes. For research integrity, documents should be reconciled with observed practice and, where relevant, the experience of affected learners.

Application to research integrity

For the intended improvement, correcting an individual record does not establish that the process which produced the error has been corrected. Across the defined scope, validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement.

For research integrity, records relating to the matter should preserve both the conclusion and its limits.

• Define the decision each assessment must support.
• Calibrate assessors.
• Moderate material variation, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.
• Review differential and anomalous results.
• Retain evidence sufficient for review.

Controls for research integrity

A competent review of research integrity should set a baseline and success measure before intervention, define the review period, compare the result with the intended outcome and examine adverse or unequal effects. For decisions concerning research integrity, continue monitoring long enough to determine whether the improvement is sustained.

• Did the effect reach the intended group?
• What was the baseline?
• Has the improvement been sustained?
• When should an effect be visible?
• What condition should change?

Review of research integrity

Across the defined scope, material action requires a named responsible function and a defined completion point.

Review of the corrective action should address both system-level conditions and institutional practice. For research integrity, assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result.