In this episode, our host Emily Goodall speaks with James Parry, an independent consultant specialising in research integrity and research culture, and former Chief Executive of the UK Research Integrity Office. With years of experience supporting organisations and the research community, James shares insights on how research misconduct extends far beyond instances of fabrication or plagiarism — and how everyday pressures, small compromises, and unchallenged bad behaviour can erode trust, wellbeing, and research quality.

Integrity in research isn’t just about following rules — it’s about building a culture where doing the right thing is supported, encouraged, and possible.

Episode highlights include:

1️⃣ How systemic pressures like publish-or-perish cultures, job precarity, and time strain make good practice harder to maintain.

2️⃣ Why seeking advice and support early is essential: “You don't have to go full Scooby-Doo!” It’s not your job to investigate or challenge poor practice on your own.

3️⃣ The importance of a “setbacks, not failures” mindset to reduce pressure, discourage corner-cutting, and support wellbeing.

4️⃣ Creating environments where people feel safe to raise concerns and leaders role in supporting good practice.

5️⃣ How unchallenged misconduct and poor culture can damage relationships, trust, and collaboration.

Links and resources from this episode:

1. How to contact James: https://parryconsulting.org/contact-me/
2. James Parry LinkedIN profile and James Parry Consulting website.
3. The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025).
4. UK Committee on Research Integrity/ Research Consulting, Review of annual statements on research integrity (2025).
5. UK Committee on Research Integrity, Indicators of Research Integrity (2024).
6. All European Academies (ALLEA), European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023).
7. World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010).

If you have enjoyed listening to this episode, please consider leaving a review on your favourite podcast app, via Podchaser, or by submitting an online review form.

✍ Podchaser https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/research-culture-uncovered-4959637?utm_source=captivate&utm_medium=podcast_page&action=rate

✍ Online Review Form https://forms.office.com/e/6effjgmmM6

All of our episodes can be accessed via the following playlists:

1. Research Impact with Ged Hall (follow Ged on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
2. Research Impact Heroes with Ged Hall
3. Open Research with Nick Sheppard (follow Nick on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
4. Research Careers with Ruth Winden (follow Ruth on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
5. Research talent management
6. Meet the Research Culturositists with Emma Spary (follow Emma on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
7. Research co-production
8. Research evaluation
9. Research leadership
10. Research professionals
11. Academic failure with Taryn Bell (follow Taryn on Bluesky and LinkedIn)

Follow us on Bluesky: @researcherdevleeds.bsky.social (new episodes are announced here), @openresleeds.bsky.social, @researchcultureuol.bsky.social

Connect to us on LinkedIn: @ResearchUncoveredPodcast (new episodes are announced here too).

If you would like to contribute to a podcast episode get in touch: researcherdevelopment@leeds.ac.uk

Emily Goodall [00:00:22]: Hello and welcome to Research Culture Uncovered.

Emily Goodall [00:00:49]: James, welcome to the podcast.

Emily Goodall [00:00:55]: Today we're going to be talking about research misconduct. It's a topic I've wanted to explore on the podcast for a while now, but before we really dive into it, James, could you tell us a bit about your background and your current work in consultancy?

James Parry [00:01:35]: Address mistakes and disputes, authorship disputes and cases of misconduct, I help them comply with national, funder and other key requirements for research, practice, and implement systemic improvements. I used to be chief executive of the UK Research Integrity Office, which I joined when it started in 2006. Then from 2008, I led the organization for 15 years, taking it from a pilot initiative to.

James Parry [00:02:28]: And I'm really enjoying it. I provide some practical advice and guidance based on those decades of experience, training, some crisis management, community building and thought leadership in the UK and abroad, as well as doing work for a variety of initiatives and networks like the Science Integrity Alliance.

James Parry [00:03:07]: And like anyone working in research, which I did as a field archaeologist for a while before my research integrity career, or in research support, which I've also done as parts of various roles, I encountered issues of research integrity, research culture long before I started those 20 years as a specialist.

James Parry [00:03:50]: Good research practice is basically what research integrity is. Making sure that research is honest, rigorous, conducted with care and respect, and that it's transparent and well communicated and accountable. And for me, research integrity is about more than just meeting those essential standards. It's also best practice: ensuring that research is as good it can be, and enabling researchers to do their best possible work and have environments that support that best practice.

James Parry [00:04:34]: Through a different lens or not, is about encouraging all of us to think about what are the challenges to us doing our best possible work to having those supportive research environments and how we can work together to overcome those. And I think that is something that's been a driver of my work in research integrity or research culture since I started in it.

James Parry [00:05:17]: Absolutely, and I think it's worth noting like so many concepts in research, there's no universal definitions for this stuff. For research misconduct and questionable research practices, which I'm going to shorten to QRPs just so I spend less syllables on it. But, so it's really important for researchers to understand how their country, their research organization, their research funders.

James Parry [00:06:16]: Now, what cuts across all definitions and terms is that research misconduct and QRPs are all breaches of research integrity, of those standards and behaviours which are expected as part of good research practice, and which are essential for ethical, high quality research that's worthy of the public trust.

James Parry [00:07:06]: This stuff isn't just a matter of semantics. Definitions and terminology may vary, but these are defined terms in things such as funding contracts, binding national guidance, publisher agreements, institutional standards that manifest in your employment contracts or your terms of enrolment if you're a research student.

James Parry [00:07:54]: Though many countries like the UK go further, so at the very least research misconduct is fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, often called FFP for short. So making stuff up. Inappropriate manipulation of data, findings, results, processes, and the like, or using other people's ideas or work or materials without acknowledgement or permission.

James Parry [00:08:42]: So in the UK as well as the FFP - Falsification Fabrication and Plagiarism - research misconduct also includes failure to meet legal, ethical, and professional obligations. So, that’s basically not observing your ethical or other permissions for the research, or breach of duty of care to participants, to animal subjects, to the environment, to fellow researchers, misuse of personal data and the like.

James Parry [00:09:32]: So covering it up, taking out reprisals against whistleblowers, that's also research misconduct. And that last section of the definition, it should be noted that can also be considered breaches of sort of, HR good practice of an employer. If you cover up malpractice or enact reprisals against whistleblowers, that can be a breach of other things, not just research misconduct standards.

James Parry [00:10:25]: Equally, there are things that have always been wrong. Now in terms of QRPs, that's really interesting. A traditional view is to think of research practice as being on a continuum. One end of that line, you have good practice, then you have mistakes and errors and accidents, you know, the avoidable setbacks, and then you have questionable research practices.

James Parry [00:11:17]: And that is an interesting definition I find, because it includes avoidable errors as a questionable research practice where there are other definitions out there which wouldn't class them as a QRP or similar, but something that sits between good practice and the questionable practices. Another difference between questionable practices and misconduct is that misconduct is usually viewed as happening because there's an intention to deceive, it's deliberate or from really reckless practice or negligence.

James Parry [00:12:07]: A classic one is you have a lovely graph of data points. 99% of them are sitting where you wanted them to be or where you expected them to be and you’ve got a tiny amount of outliers, and you could say to yourself, well. I could leave those off. I'm cleaning it up. I'm making it easier for people to understand.

James Parry [00:12:47]: And Jane, you've done loads on a research project but I'm not going to let you be an author even if you qualify. Whereas Jack, you haven't done enough to meet authorship but I will let you qualify. And at the time, 20 years back, that was seen an example of questionable research practice, but even then a lot of places would gone, no, that's outright research misconduct.

James Parry [00:13:27]: So it's minor stuff. And I think as with any case of research misconduct, they need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. And there can be a fine line between a mistake, a dispute, and between a questionable research practice. And if in doubt, seek help. So you can navigate those complexities. If you've got concerns about something you see going on.

Emily Goodall [00:14:02]: Absolutely. It's really good advice for our listeners. There's evidence to suggest that research misconduct and questionable research practices happen more often than we might think.

James Parry [00:14:21]: There's a lot of debate on how common or uncommon research misconduct is, and often you compare the number of known cases with the number of research projects carried out.

James Parry [00:14:59]: Whereas we have studies and surveys showing that sometimes 1% of researchers admitted to engaging in serious research misconduct. We need better numbers on the state of research misconduct in the UK. We have some figures, Research Consulting has done some great analysis of annual research integrity statements and their summary data on misconduct.

James Parry [00:15:42]: For example, the analysis of annual integrity statements I mentioned reported that the top three allegations for research misconduct are plagiarism, Failure to meet legal, ethical, and professional obligations, and misrepresentation - Misrepresentation often means authorship disputes. I've advised on a lot of those over the years - and that's interesting in itself because the classic forms of misconduct are sent to be fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

James Parry [00:16:35]: I understand. We're talking about breaches of research integrity. When we discuss drivers of those breaches, and I think it's worth discussing how research integrity, good research practice works. For me it manifests on three levels: on the level of individual research projects, so our standards and behaviours when we do our research.

James Parry [00:17:15]: And the international systems that influence those national ones. And accordingly we see drivers for research misconduct and QRPs manifesting on each of those three levels, and everything is interlinked. As an example, UK CORI in 2024 published a great report on indicators of research integrity, and it notes that undue pressures on the productivity of research staff, on academic staff, may be linked to a focus on outputs rather than process, as well as linked to cases of questionable research practices and potentially research misconduct.

James Parry [00:18:09]: Not all team leaders, not all department heads, not all senior leaders, but certainly enough of them. And that leads to those pressures being certainly embedded in researchers themselves. They carry them with them, they believe them, they are their lived experience, and they are very, very real. We are all responsible for keeping to standards of research integrity, for good practice.

James Parry [00:18:55]: It can sometimes make good practice much harder. Research integrity, Good practice is also challenged by changes in how we do research, such as practical and ethical issues of responsible use of emerging technologies like AI and research institutions are under increasing pressures these days, time financial constraints, concerns about research security and potential misuse of research.

James Parry [00:19:45]: A sort of publish quickly mindset that our career will suffer if we're not frequently publishing research in high profile outputs with lovely positive data and findings, so-called publish or perish. But it's something that people feel very deeply, it's real. Unclear expectations on complex issues like authorship, data management or use of those emerging tools - I advise on this stuff a lot.

James Parry [00:20:27]: Yes, there does need to be systemic change, but equally there's stuff that we can and should be doing now.

Emily Goodall [00:20:46]: What do you see as the main barriers that would prevent researchers from coming forward, especially our early career colleagues?

James Parry [00:21:04]: This has been explored for a while. There are issues about how the UK and many other countries treat whistleblowers and whistle blowing. So there a lot of studies and resources out there about the organizational culture attitudes and indeed kind of national attitudes that need to shift, so we become better at responding to concerns thoroughly and fairly and make it clear that raising concerns is the right thing to do.

James Parry [00:21:44]: Now, there have been two parliamentary inquiries into research integrity in the last decade in the UK, and I was invited to give evidence to both of them. What struck me both times were the testimonies from whistleblowers who felt that their concerns were ignored or that they were penalized, as was my conviction, that we all need to better resource research integrity teams, so they have capacity to address concerns more effectively and in a timely manner.

James Parry [00:22:33]: Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, who I used to work with, published a report almost 25 years ago calling for better transparency and support for whistle blowing in the NHS amongst other things. And there are many commentators who argue that things haven't improved since then. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

James Parry [00:23:09]: Looking at that UK core indicators project, again the report said. Participants highlighted that poor management practices can contribute significantly to the emergence of questionable research practices, research misconduct, And, this is the key bit, to the creation of environments in which researchers do not feel safe to admit errors or mistakes, and to failures to safeguard research integrity.

James Parry [00:23:50]: So as well as specific concerns about suffering from becoming a whistleblower magnified by those career and financial pressures I mentioned earlier, there're also drivers from the local research culture experiences from the environments in which researchers work. So if you work in a team or department where speaking out isn't encouraged or is clamped down on.

James Parry [00:24:34]: And all of those factors and other factors can and are exacerbated by power imbalances. It's especially challenging for junior researchers, non-research staff, and those from diverse backgrounds to speak out. People can also be worried about threat of legal action from institutions or from people accused of misconduct.

James Parry [00:25:15]: So there are barriers at all levels for individuals, but also for institutions as well. We should recognize those.

Emily Goodall [00:25:35]: If they are worried, where do you think they could go?

James Parry [00:25:53]: Doing so can open you up to reprisals. It can also sometimes mean that a later investigation is more challenging, and people can say, well, I'm being harassed by my colleagues who've come along and said, I'm committing research misconduct. There's also an understandable fear: I think this person's committed fraud.

James Parry [00:26:28]: And equally, if you don't feel safe about having that conversation, or it's a serious matter that you think concerns should be raised around about quickly, particularly if there's any risk of harm to people, animals, or the environment, report it. There will be places in your institution you can go.

James Parry [00:27:08]: So there are lots of places you can go.

James Parry [00:27:28]: There's a quote often used in relation to organizational culture, and let's face it, unless you are part of an organization where a search is only a very infrequent minor activity there's going to be very little difference between your research culture and your organizational culture. The quote I've heard lots of people say in different ways is, your culture is defined by the bad behaviours that are tolerated, whether they're tolerated overtly or tacitly.

James Parry [00:28:16]: This stuff is corrosive. It's not only harmful to research quality and ethical standards, not only damaging to trust in research and trust in researchers, it also corrodes working relationships. It poisons trust between collaborating institutions. It harms people's wellbeing. It can drive people out of jobs or even a career, and it can discourage others from speaking out when they observe problems.

James Parry [00:29:03]: It's also about enabling researchers to do the best work that we can and having research environments that support that. Research misconduct, fear about reporting it failures to address it robustly damages both of those aspects, both research and also the people and environments involved. So for the sake of a healthy research culture, institutions need to address research misconduct objectively, thoroughly, and fairly in a timely manner.

James Parry [00:29:46]: I must also note that research integrity teams in organizations amidst their, the people whose job it is to address misconduct allegations are often underfunded and under resourced compared to the amounts of research an organization does. That 2024 indicators report called for greater investment in those teams.

Emily Goodall [00:30:18]: I just wanted to finish today by thinking about what practical steps institutions and researchers can take to build those cultures, which do feel safe to question and challenge.

James Parry [00:30:37]: There's a great paragraph from the European Code of Conduct for research integrity that says, in their most serious forms, unacceptable practices are sanctionable. But at the very least every effort must be made to prevent, discourage, and stop them, through training, supervision, and mentoring, and through the development of a positive and supportive research environment.

James Parry [00:31:25]: There are challenges here. Translating national and funders standards effectively into local systems and procedures, making sure those systems and procedures can handle the complex issues that can come up during investigations, and then truly embedding them with and their reporting mechanisms and the culture of the organization.

James Parry [00:32:01]: I think there's also the question of training. Are we teaching researchers what they need to know or are we leaving them to pick it up as they go along? If it's the latter, are they picking up good habits or bad? Training and awareness raising is really important on why research integrity matters, how to be.

James Parry [00:32:44]: Setbacks, not failures. It's really powerful. You know, we will all make mistakes as researchers. We will all sometimes not succeed. We won't get that grant. The results won't come out as we'd hoped. We won't be accepted for publication in an high profile journal. We won't get a promotion. And it is incredibly dispiriting when it happens.

James Parry [00:33:23]: Impossibly high standards. We are never going to not have setbacks. We should strive for best research practice, but recognize that when things don't go right, we have not failed and we will get through it. Now. that’s in our mindset but there's also kind of broader cultural stuff I mentioned earlier, there needs to be better resourcing and research integrity teams.

James Parry [00:34:02]: Another quote that's still valid. Employers should defend researchers when they live up to the expectations of this research integrity Concordat. So, standards of good research practice in difficult circumstances. You know, we need to back our people when they do the right thing, and that applies to whistleblowers, it applies to other people as well.

James Parry [00:34:41]: Pressures, incentives, habits, setbacks can all affect decisions, but awareness and foresight, really help us respond well as does always seeking advice and support ff you're unsure, that's really important. And leaders of any level, whether you've just got your first PhD student or you've gone full working on your own to having a junior supervisory role in a team, or you're in charge of entire university and everything in between.

James Parry [00:35:28]: High publication count or fantastic grant income, even small acknowledgements and efforts. So for, you know, positive collaboration or mentoring, careful data management, a kind word all reinforces that research integrity and healthy research cultures are valued. Again, through leadership, creating environment where people feel safe to admit mistakes or ask questions is so incredibly important.

James Parry [00:36:11]: But checklists in surgery give people a framework. For making sure that issues and problems aren’t missed and empower people to speak up. Because Okay. My surgeon has asked me about this item on the checklist and therefore it's entirely right for me to respond and say, actually we haven't got that right and.

James Parry [00:36:46]: And this is something that's every day, it's a shared responsibility, not something extra or alien or otherwise. Sooner or later, we're all going to face situations where expectations or pressures from others may not sit comfortably with the ethos of being a good researcher or own ethical values, or the standards or permissions for a project.

James Parry [00:37:34]: And for institutions, the most important thing is to make it clear that you will listen when people want to report concerns and highlight how to do this. Make it clear you would much rather have a conversation about a concern early on to reduce the need to resolve a problem afterwards and do what you can to promote that.

Emily Goodall [00:38:03]: You've raised some really important points. As part of the podcast series, we have episodes of failure and setbacks, and I think you're absolutely right.

Emily Goodall [00:38:33]: That's all we have time for today, James. Thank you so much for joining us. There's clearly much more we could say about research misconduct, and your insights will be incredibly valuable to our listeners.

James Parry [00:38:51]: And yes, if you're an individual struggling with this stuff, seek advice and don't go through this alone. Be careful of your wellbeing because it's really important. That matters. You matter.

Intro/Outro [00:39:09]: Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast.