Research Integrity Landscape Study - UKRI

1y ago
27 Views
2 Downloads
5.09 MB
27 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Ronan Orellana
Transcription

Researchintegrity:a landscape studyUK Research and Innovation Brand Guidelines / Bringing our brand to lifeContentsLOGOUKRI logoJune 2020Symbol and logotypeThe UKRI logo consists of two elements:our symbol and our logotype.Our logoLogo colourOur logo uses our brand colour UKRI Blue.To reproduce UKRI Blue as accurately asSRVVLEOH IROORZ WKHVH VSHFLͤFDWLRQV For print use, our logo colour is:Pantone 2758 C, orC100 M95 Y5 K39For screen use, our logo colour is:R46 G45 B98, orHex: #2E2D62Preferred colouringThis colouring is the primary version of ourlogo. A secondary version which uses a whitelogotype, and monotone versions for situationswhere colour is not available, are shown laterin this section.Always use the artworkThe logo should always be reproduced fromWKH SURYLGHG DUWZRUN ͤOH DQG PXVW QRW EH stretched, squashed, re-drawn or alteredin any way. Our logo artwork is availablein the following formats:Pantone : ai, pdf UKRI symbolUKRI logotypeUKRI logoOur logo colour: UKRI BluePantone 2758CMYK: ai, pdf, tifRGB: ai, emf, pdf, pngGreyscale: ai, emf, pdf, pngPlease note that the contents of this document are exclusively for demonstration, comparison and review, and individual images may belong to third parties and may not be reproduced in any way.14

RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDYVitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) LimitedResearch integrity:a landscape studyVitae in partnership with the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and theUK Reproducibility Network (UKRN)Commissioned by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)Dr Janet Metcalfe, VitaeDr Katie Wheat, VitaeProfessor Marcus Munafò, UKRNJames Parry, UKRIOVitae, 2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) LimitedAcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Research England, UKRI, and their External AdvisoryGroup for their support and guidance during the project and would like torecord our thanks to the interviewees, workshop participants and surveyrespondents for sharing their time and experiences.External Advisory Group members: Dr Steven Hill (Research England Chair), Dr Simon Kolstoe (University of Portsmouth), Neil Jacobs (UKRI),Prof Ottoline Leyser (University of Cambridge), Prof Malcolm Macleod(University of Edinburgh), Dr Elaine Morley (UKRI), Leonie Shanks(Universities UK), Dr Karen Salt (UKRI), Dr Netta Weinstein (CardiffUniversity), and Dr Frances Downey (UKRI). Research England projectsupport was provided by Dr Helen Snaith and Dr Lewis Dean and wasgreatly appreciated.We also thank other members of the project team: Karen HaynesSupporting annexes are available as(Frontinus), Dr Robin Mellors-Bourne and Meryem Yilmaz (CRAC),separate documents.Dr Anne-Marie Coriat (the Wellcome Trust), Dr Maura Hiney (the Healthwww.ukri.org/about-us/policies-Research Board, Ireland), and Dr Robby Thibault and Dr Jackie Thompsonand-standards/research-integrity/(the University of Bristol).Annex A: Literature reviewmay not reflect the policy positions of UKRI.4Executive summary61. Introduction1.1 Purpose of the study1.2 Defining research integrity1.3 Defining incentives1.4 The study’s scope and methodology1.5 Limitations1.6 The report’s structure111111121314152. Research integrity:Authorsunderstanding,awareness and motivationDr JanetMetcalfe, Vitae2.1Understandingof research integrity2.2Dr KatieAwarenessWheat, ofVitaeresearch integrity icMunafò, motivationsUK Reproducibility Network17171819JamesParry, UK3. LocalcultureandResearchpeople Integrity Office213.1 Bullying and harassment21Vitae, 2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited3.2 Research leadership and management22enquiries@vitae.ac.uk4. Relationshipbetween research integrity andwww.vitae.ac.ukacademic disciplines234.1 Disciplinary norms23About Vitae4.2 Interdisciplinary research24Vitaeis the globalleaderin supporting the professional developmentof4.3Exposureto othernorms25researchers, experienced in working with institutions as they strive for5. Institutionalprocesses26research excellence,innovation and impact.5.1 Research strategy and governance265.2The26VitaeandREFits membership programme are managed by the5.3Leaguetables27Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited an independent5.4 Codes of practice28registered charity. CRAC Registered Charity No 313164.5.5 Institutional ethics processes285.6Reportingresearchmisconduct29CRAC5.7 Employment conditions2922 Signet Court5.8 Professional development and training30Swanns Road6. ent32CB5 8LA6.2 Pressure to publish346.3 Time pressures and job security35Acknowledgements6.4The publishing peer-review process36We aregratefulto Research England, UKRI and the External their supportand genderand guidance during the project and would38 also6.7Publicperceptionof toresearch,and the media40like torecordour thanksthe interviewees,workshop participantsandAuthorsThe interpretations and opinions in this report are those of the authors andContentsResearch Integrity:Foreworda landscape studyAnnex B: Quantitative data summaryAnnex C: Qualitative workshop summaryAnnex D: Qualitative interview summarysurvey respondentsforimprovesharingresearchtheir timeintegrityand experiences.7. Perceptionsof how to427.1 Who is most responsible for improving researchOur thanks to other members of the project team; Karen Haynesintegrity?42(Frontinus),Dr Robin Mellors-BourneMeryem Yilmaz (CRAC),7.2Trustworthinessof the research andenvironment43Dr Anne-MarieCoriatDr MauraHiney(Health Research7.3Stakeholderviews(Wellcome),on improvingresearchintegrity44Board Ireland), and Dr Robby Thibault and Dr Jackie Thompson8. Conclusion48(University of Bristol).8.1 Complexity of the research ecosystem488.2of opinionsindividualsversusThe Trustworthinessinterpretations andin thisreport are those of the authors andtrustworthiness of the system49may not reflect the policy positions of UKRI.8.3 Influence of the immediate environment508.4 Opportunities for all stakeholders513

RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDYForewordResearch integrity means undertaking and conducting research in a waythat ensures it is trustworthy and ethical. It also encompasses a set ofprofessional standards that researchers should adopt and that researchorganisations should promote and support to ensure this. Researchintegrity is central to our vision at UK Research and Innovation and cutsacross all we do as a research organisation, funder and partner. As asignatory of the UUK Concordat to Support Research Integrity, we arecommitted to upholding the core values of honesty, rigour, transparency,care and respect, and accountability.In January 2017, the Science and Technology Select Committee (Commons)launched an inquiry into research integrity. Following collection of bothwritten and oral evidence, the Committee published its final report in July2018. The Committee’s report highlighted that there is a need to betterunderstand what incentives and effects there are in the UK research andfunding system that influence researcher and institutional behaviour inSir Mark WalportChief Executive,UK Research and InnovationVitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) LimitedThe importance of interdisciplinary working, and intersectoral andinternational collaborations and the positive impact on researchintegrity should not be overlooked. Almost 8 in 10 researchers agree thatundertaking interdisciplinary research drives them to achieve high levelsof research integrity: opportunities to collaborate across different researchcontexts, and the exposure to other disciplinary norms is believed to havea positive influence. UKRI’s unique position – that is, one that encouragesand facilitates its nine constituent bodies to work together – means thatwe can build upon the strength, breadth, and diversity of UK research andencourage this approach to interdisciplinary working.Vitae’s study has found that there is a tension between researchers’strong sense of personal values to uphold research integrity and systemicpressures that risk undermining these values. Poorly designed andinappropriate research metrics and the use of university league tables havethe potential to create a strong negative impact on research integrity. Highworkloads and precarious working conditions all contribute to perverseincentives that risk compromising research integrity.the context of research integrity. The report asked that UKRI commissionAn important and concerning finding is that incidents of bullying andresearch to understand the effects of these incentives.harassment are cited as the top factor negatively impacting researchVitae, working with UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and the UKReproducibility Network (UKRN), were commissioned by UKRI to conducta study into the effects of incentives in the research system on researcherbehaviour. The study, overseen by an expert advisory group, was conductedthrough an extensive literature review, a survey, researcher workshops andinterviews, collectively reaching over 1500 researchers and representativesof stakeholder organisations. This report synthesises the findings of theseactivities.integrity. UKRI is working with other funders and partners through a newfunders’ forum to join up our approaches to tackling these issues. Lastyear we published our bullying and harassment position statement whichset out our intention to focus on strategies for prevention and improvingreporting and resolution of incidents. We will continue to support researchorganisations to meet our expectations by improving evidence andresources on what works, recognising the role of local environments aswell as national policies. More needs to be done to build trustworthinessinto the research system at every step in the research lifecycle, with theThe study has found that the relationship between research incentivesaim of fostering a culture of continuous improvement, rather than blame.and research integrity is a complex one. The interconnectedness of theOver 80% of researchers agree that their immediate research environmentresearch ecosystem – from an individual and local cultural level through todrives them to achieve high levels of research integrity, highlighting thenational and international policies – creates incentives and effects (bothimportance of local culture, management, and support from peers.positive and negative) that have the potential to influence behaviour in thecontext of research integrity.We know there is more than can be done to support research integrityand we are committed to catalysing the changes that are needed. TheIt is assuring to hear that, of those surveyed, all researchers reportedResearch integrity Committee, a new arms-length body with a remit tothat they are motivated towards high levels of research integrity. Theadopt a leadership role in this area, will commence work later in the year.importance of local culture to drive forward positive incentives for researchThis report will no doubt provide a starting point for their work.integrity is crucial. Good leadership and management, professionaldevelopment, sharing research, and the opportunity to collaborate andwork with colleagues from other disciplines are all considered to havestrong positive impact on research integrity. At UKRI, we have alreadyadopted practices that lead to high standards of research integrity. Forexample, one of our aims is to make sure that the findings of research wesupport can be freely accessed and widely reused in ways that can provideopportunities for economic, social, and cultural impact. Certainly, openresearch and open data sharing have proven to be crucial in acceleratingThis research integrity study was conducted before the Covid-19 crisis. Yet,the importance of research to the management of this crisis emphasisesthat the need to uphold strong standards of research integrity is ofoverwhelming importance. There is a significant opportunity for all involvedin the UK research system, from funders to publishers, and researchorganisations to learned societies, to ensure that positive incentives formaintaining this integrity are upheld, and that systemic pressures andperverse incentives are addressed.scientific progress and sharing knowledge. Our commitment to openresearch will be strengthened as we continue to work and listen to ourstakeholders in the development of the new UKRI Open Access policy.Sir Mark WalportChief Executive, UK Research and Innovation5

RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDYThe study set out to understand:– the ‘incentives’ and ‘pressures’ in theUK research system– their perceived impact on researchintegrity and on researcher behaviourmore broadly– the extent to which the incentives areperceived as positive or negative– how these perceptions differ acrossstakeholder groups.Vitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) LimitedExecutive summaryThis report presents the findings of a study of the research integritylandscape, carried out by Vitae in partnership with UKRIO and UKRN. Thestudy was commissioned by UKRI in response to a recommendation fromthe House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.1Research integrity is defined as undertaking and conducting research ina way that ensures it is trustworthy and ethical, including the professional99%RESEARCHERS STRONGLY PERCEIVE TEMPTATIONSTO COMPROMISE ON RESEARCH INTEGRITY94%“The vast majority of researchers have a struggling sense ofpersonal and professional ethics, but this is constantly underminedby disciplinary, institutional and government drivers towardsfulfilling goals and targets, even those ostensibly intended topromote ethics.”agree that personalintegrity drives researchintegritystandards that researchers should adopt and research organisationsshould promote, as well as the core values of honesty, rigour, openness,transparency, care, respect and accountability (see the Concordat toSupport Research Integrity, 2019).The study was conducted through a literature review, a survey andworkshops that collectively reached over 1,500 researchers andother individuals in the UK research system, and interviews with 20representatives of stakeholder organisations. The scope was limited tounderstand the levels ofresearch integrity expectedthe UK research system, while recognising that this sits within the broaderglobal research environment. A range of potential incentives were exploredto local, discipline, institutional, national and global levels. It is important tonote, however, that this is a simplified description of the system and thatmany incentives operate at multiple levels and interact in complex ways.RESEARCHERS ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO BEHAVEWITH INTEGRITYResearch fellow, university (survey respondent)researchers believeothers feel tempted tocompromise researchintegrity, at least some ofthe timeachieve high levels of research integrity. 81% of the survey respondentsstrongly agreed that their personal integrity drives their research integrity,with another 18% agreeing. 73% reported that researchers uphold highlevels of research integrity all or most of the time.This message was underpinned by strong awareness and understanding ofwhat research integrity encompasses, with 94% of researchers reportingthat they understood the levels of research integrity expected of them.Overall, however, awareness and understanding of specific initiatives onresearch integrity that are in place internationally and at UK level was.TOP FIVE INCENTIVES FOR EACH CATEGORY AS RATED FOR THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACTON RESEARCH INTEGRITY*Strongly positiveperceived impact:Positive and negativeperceived impact:Strongly negativeperceived impact:Data sharing policies andrequirementsMedia coverage and publicperception of researchIncidents of bullying andharassmentOpen access publishingResearch leadership andmanagementUse of journal impact factor (JIF),h-index and other metricsInterdisciplinary researchHow funding for specific projectsis awardedLeague tables of institutionsProfessional development andtraining opportunitiesHow researchers are assessed forpromotion during their careersInstitutional workload modelsResearch leadership andmanagementInstitutional research strategyHow researchers are assessed forpromotion during their careersreported to be quite low, with the highest levels of awareness for relatedinstitutional activities such as ethical approval processes.1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2019): Research Integrity: Sixth Reportof Session 2017-19RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INCENTIVES ANDRESEARCH INTEGRITY ARE DEEPLY COMPLEXThe findings illustrate varied and nuanced perspectives, with a richtapestry of caveats and contextualisation needed to make sense of howdifferent groups perceive the various incentives, where they impact onthe research system and whether they have an overall positive or negativeinfluence on research integrity.“I think the main thing to tackle would be the incentive structure,in terms of publishing, funding, promotion, etc. But ultimately theresponsibility lies with the people conducting the research.”A consistent message is that researchers are intrinsically motivated toDirector/head of department, university (survey respondent)Many potential incentives across the research ecosystem were exploredto understand their perceived relationships with research integrity.‘Incentives’ are defined here as factors that encourage or motivatebehaviour. What emerged above all was the complexity of how incentivespotentially impact on research integrity. The study explored over 80different potential incentives embedded at different levels of the researchsystem; the individual researcher level, local research culture, disciplinaryor institutional, or at play nationally and internationally.at different levels of the research system, from the individual level, through78%The study revealed strongly perceived tensions that have the potentialto undermine research integrity. 59% of researchers believe that otherresearchers feel tempted or under pressure to compromise on researchintegrity some of the time. A further 19% believe this temptation is feltby others most or all the time. Only 6% of respondents believe that otherresearchers never feel tempted. On the other hand, 59% of researchersreported that they had never personally felt tempted to compromise onresearch integrity.*Incentives phrased as asked in the survey. To some extent negatively perceived incentives can be caveated with ‘poor’ or ‘inappropriate’(e.g. ‘poor workload models’ or ‘inappropriate use of league tables’) but not entirely.7

RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDYVitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) LimitedThe table identifies the incentives perceived as having the most stronglyAdditionally, the influence of disciplinary norms was generally perceivedpositive impact and the most strongly negative impact on researchto be positive, along with perceptions of the influence of learned societiesintegrity, as well as those potentially having both positive and negativeand professional bodies. There were concerns, however, about the risks toimpacts. This provides a useful starting-point for considering how toresearch integrity from disciplinary siloes, cliques and maintenance of theimprove incentive structures so that they encourage high levels ofstatus quo, further reinforcing the benefits of working across disciplines.research integrity. The challenge for stakeholders, both individually andSYSTEMIC PRESSURES AND PERVERSE INCENTIVESARE DEEPLY EMBEDDED THROUGHOUT THERESEARCH ECOSYSTEMcollectively, is in developing policies that emphasise and incentivise higherlevels of research integrity, while avoiding (unintended) consequences forand negative pressures on it.82%agree their immediateresearch environmentdrives them toachieve high levels ofresearch integrity“It’s difficult to prioritise research integrity in a sea of perverseincentives and insecure employment. There is not a personaldeficit on the part of researchers in our understanding of researchintegrity. But we are working in a system where research integrity isnot rewarded.”LOCAL CULTURE CAN STRONGLY INFLUENCEBEHAVIOUR, OVERRIDING INSTITUTIONAL ANDNATIONAL POLICYThe study confirmed that the people and culture within a local researchResearch fellow, university (survey respondent)environment are perceived to have strong and persistent influences onresearch integrity. To some extent, local cultures are shaped by institutionalpractices or guidelines, but management styles and personalities ofresearch leaders, the immediate research environment, role models andcollaborators were perceived to be much stronger drivers for individualsthan institutional strategy and policies. Workshop participants describedthis influence of the local culture in terms of “strong bonds” apparent atresearch group, departmental or discipline level that can be resistant tomore distant “weak forces” such as institutional, national and internationalpolicies.However, many of the key policies that influence researcher behaviour arefocused at an institutional level; they include ethical approval processes,codes of practice and training and development opportunities, whichall have an important role to play. Other features of the institutional50% (female)58% (male)The findings confirm a complex and pressured research ecosystem thatrespondents feel able toraise concerns withoutpersonal consequencesresearch system.at times appears to work against researchers’ intrinsic motivations topractise high levels of research integrity, and no one aspect emerged as asingle point of failure for research integrity. It is apparent that pressures areembedded throughout the research ecosystem that are widely perceivedto be perverse incentives, with the potential to encourage, tempt or rewardpoor research integrity. The insidious nature of the ‘pressure to publish’ andthe associated use of (inappropriate) metrics permeates all levels of theThere is no direct evidence that these perverse incentives are in factdriving poor research behaviour. However, the balance of incentivesoperating against research integrity is perceived to be greater and strongerenvironment, including employment contracts, the precarious naturethan those operating in favour of achieving high levels of research integrity.of employment and institutional strategies – particularly in relation toThe intersection between pressures on research integrity and perceptionsinstitutional responses to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) –were all seen to potentially have both positive and negative impacts onresearch integrity. The competitive pressure on institutions, and moreimportantly how institutions respond to this pressure, was also believedto have a significant influence on the local research culture, for examplein driving hiring and promotion practices and managing workloads andperformance targets.EXPOSURE TO INTERDISCIPLINARY, INTERSECTORALAND INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH EXPERIENCES CANBE POSITIVE FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITYThe positive potential influence of ‘exposure to other norms’ also emergedas a consistent theme. Opportunities to collaborate across, or moveof high levels of insecurity, a highly competitive environment andindividualistic (as opposed to team-based) rewards and career structureswas apparent through the generally more negative responses anddiscussion from those earlier in their research careers. The surveyalso explored differences in responses by gender and other protectedcharacteristics, and although the sample sizes were not always largeenough to compare responses, there were some differences by gender. Forexample, female respondents reported being less likely to feel comfortablein raising concerns about poor levels of research integrity without fearof personal consequences. Females were also less likely to know how toreport instances of research misconduct, although levels of understandingof research integrity were comparable.between, different research contexts were believed to have a positiveinfluence on research integrity. Interdisciplinary working and inter-sectoraland international collaborations came through strongly as positiveincentives for research integrity, potentially by increasing openness,honesty and rigour, despite the perceived challenges in funding andpublishing interdisciplinary work.9

RESEARCH INTEGRITY: A LANDSCAPE STUDY90%respondents believeresearch integrity iscompromised at leastsome of the timeBOOSTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY REQUIRES ACULTURE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTA strong message emerging from this study is the high level of personalintegrity that researchers expect from themselves and others, and theextent to which the research system relies on this. Generally, individualresearchers believe they can maintain high levels of research integrity,despite perceiving a range of pressures working counter to this (such aslarge workloads, pressure to publish and insecure employment). However,they are less confident that other researchers do not feel tempted tocompromise. For a system essentially built on trust that individuals willinherently ‘do the right thing’, a loss of trust in each other could haveVitae, @2020 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) LimitedThe landscape study set out todevelop a clear understanding of:– the ‘incentives’ and ‘pressures’ in theresearch system– how these affect research behaviourin the context of research integrity, aswell as more broadlyserious implications for research integrity.But considerably more could be done to build more trustworthiness intothe research system at every step in the research lifecycle, with the aim of– the extent to which the incentives areconsidered positive or negativerewards research integrity, rather than focusing on compliance, monitoringand sanctions, will have a more positive overall effect on levels of researchintegrity.NO-ONE CAN RADICALLY CHANGE THIS COMPLEXSYSTEM ALONE, BUT ALL CAN CONTRIBUTE TOIMPROVING RESEARCH INTEGRITYThere is a significant opportunity for all stakeholders to contribute toand collaborate in improving research integrity within the UK researchecosystem. Individual researchers feel strongly responsible for achievinghigh levels of research integrity, but there is a clear need for more supportand to provide more positive incentives. Suggestions for such supportincluded professional development and training across a range of topics,including leadership and management, integrity and ethics, researchmethods and statistics, and data management.However, the findings also demonstrate that support at the individualresearcher level is unlikely to be enough to embed a culture of researchintegrity. All stakeholders involved in this study, including researchers,managers of researchers, research integrity professionals, institutions,funders, publishers, learned societies and professional bodies, othersector bodies and governmental policy makers, identified actions they andothers could take to improve research integrity drivers and acknowledgedthat this is a long-term agenda. Overall, the study points to a need for asustained, multi-stakeholder effort to ensure the UK has a world-leadingresearch ecosystem underpinned by the highest levels of researchintegrity.1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDYUKRI commissioned Vitae, working in partnership with UKRIO and UKRN,to undertake a landscape study on research integrity in response to arecommendation from the House of Commons Science and TechnologySelect Committee in their June 2018 report on research integrity.2 Onearea of particular focus within the House of Commons inquiry was therelationship between ‘research culture’ and ‘research integrity’. Thecommittee received evidence arguing that a positive research culture iscrucial to supporting a system that embeds research integrity. In addition,some of the evidence received pointed to particular elements of the UK’scurrent research culture that may disincentivise research integrity (such asthe competitive nature of research and research funding, high competitionfor jobs and an assumed ‘publish or perish’ culture). As a result, thefostering a culture of continuous improvement rather than of blame.A prevailing belief pinpointed by the study is that a system that values and1. Introduction– how these perceptions differ acrossstakeholder groups within the UKresearch system.committee reported that there is a need to better understand whatincentives and effects in the UK research and funding system influenceinstitutional and individual behaviour in the context of research integrity.The study’s outcomes are intended to enable UKRI to assess whereadjustments or counterbalances may be required within the researchsystem to better support research integrity and to foster a positiveresearch culture more broadly.1.2 DEFINING RESEARCH INTEGRITYResearch integrity means undertaking and conducting research in a waythat ensures it is trustworthy and ethical. It also encompasses a set ofprofessional standards that researchers should adopt and that researchorganisations should promote and support to ensure this. Throughout thestudy, we employed the definition of research integrity that appears in theConcordat to Support Research Integrity 2019 (shown in the box), with afocus on the core values of research integrity as well as the behavioursthat align to these values.As described more fully in the literature review accompanying thisreport (Annex A), discussions on research integrity often overemphasisedeliberate misconduct by individual researchers, even though outrightfraud and data fabrication have been shown to be rare in academicresearch. Taking this broad definition of research integrity thereforeacknowledges that, even if fraud and misconduct ceased entirely, therewould still be research integrity issues due, for example, to ‘questionableresearch pract

a landscape study June 2020 UKRI logo Symbol and logotype Our logo The UKRI logo consists of two elements: our symbol and our logotype. Logo colour Our logo uses our brand colour UKRI Blue. To reproduce UKRI Blue as accurately as SRVVLEOH IROORZ WKHVH VSHFL dFDWLRQV For print use, our logo colour is: Pantone 2758 C, or C100 M95 Y5 K39

Related Documents:

proceedings and on OA publishing platforms, and which acknowledge UKRI funding. In . showing 80% of in-scope outputs were meeting the requirements or fitting the criteria for the established exceptions.3 . The UKRI Open Access Review was launched in autumn 2018. UKRI is seeking to learn

17 February 2021 Economic impact of UKRI open access policy 1 1. Introduction Introduction 1.1 This report has been prepared by FTI onsulting LLP ( FTI Consulting _) for the Publishers Association (the PA _) in connection with the new open access ( OA _) policy that has been developed by UK Research and Innovation ( UKRI _) (the UKRI Policy _).1 In particular, we have been asked to .

Integrity ONE* 41x51x15.5cm Integrity DUE XL* 43.5x67x21cm Integrity TOP* 37x51x15.5cm Integrity Q* 41x51x17.5cm Integrity, the Silestone kitchen sink Seamless Integration More than 90% Quartz and 100% Innovation Integrity ONE In one single piece ONE is the model which embodies Integrity's concept. A single kitchen sink in one piece.

Research Excellence Framework: REF 2021 Code of Practice Final version – submitted to UKRI on 20 September 2019 and approved. Revised to accommodate the national changes to the REF exercise and resubmitted to UKRI on 9 October 2020. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents

research and innovation to flourish. UKRI recognises that we are in a period of unprecedented environmental change and societal expectation. Positive action is needed to address the environmental sustainability challenges we now face, including climate change and deforestation. Research and innovation plays a critical part in ensuring we

understand and use our brand in the most consistent and compelling way, whether you're working within UKRI, one of our nine councils or in a facility that is supported by us. If you have any questions about how to use the Brand Guidelines . please contact the brand team at brand@ukri.org UK Research and Innovation Brand Guidelines Contents. 2

2 Landscape design based on research: a guide 12 2.1 The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture 12 2.1.1 Research into design 13 2.1.2 Research through design 13 2.1.3 Research for design 15 2.2 Research-based knowledge and landscape design 17 2.2.1 Evidence-based landscape architecture and design 17

TO REAL ANALYSIS William F. Trench AndrewG. Cowles Distinguished Professor Emeritus Departmentof Mathematics Trinity University San Antonio, Texas, USA wtrench@trinity.edu This book has been judged to meet the evaluation criteria set by the Editorial Board of the American Institute of Mathematics in connection with the Institute’s Open Textbook Initiative. It may becopied, modified .