Funder review rights ‘leave researchers in impossible position’

Rules around government-sanctioned research can leave academics in a no-win position by forcing them to accept revisions that violate their ethical obligations, a Queensland analysis suggests.

A policy review has found that public agencies across Australia impose extremely variable editing rights over the research they facilitate, ranging from benign tweaks to complete suppression of results.

In some cases, refusal to comply is deemed research misconduct. Yet compliance can contravene regulatory guidelines including the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the Australian National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research, undermining academics’ principles and potentially jeopardising their careers.

Reporting their findings in the Journal of Academic Ethics, the authors say scientific integrity is threatened by government agencies’ “routine” review powers over independent research. But pushback by academics could have unintended consequences, with public organisations simply refusing to allow research to proceed.

“This problem needs to be addressed, both by the organisations themselves and through broader research integrity, ethics and governance structures,” the paper warns.

The analysis stemmed from co-author Caitlin Brandenburg’s experience with an unnamed state government agency. While it did not pay for her research, she needed its approval to access data and court staff for interviews.

The agency insists on pre-publication review of any research it facilitates, with its guidelines “vaguely” flagging feedback on the research. The feedback, which took more than six months to materialise, turned out to be “line-by-line editing” of the results to “soften the wording” and replace a specific interview quote.

The researchers negotiated a “compromise” but were vetoed from adding a conflict of interest statement to the effect that the manuscript had been reviewed and edited by the agency, which also refused to engage in mediation discussions while university integrity officers were present.

Brandenburg, a conjoint principal research fellow with Bond University, said the research sector had generally been more concerned about meddling for commercial than “reputational” purposes. This had created a “blind spot” around government agencies, leaving them free to conjure their own policies.

“Some have…strict rules about what they’re allowed to edit or comment about, and others kind of give themselves a blanket rule to edit or restrict any publication”, Brandenburg said.

She said she had not experienced significant interference from agencies she had dealt with previously, “even about quite controversial topics”. In this case, the agency had demanded changes to fairly uncontentious material. “I think it was just this worry that anything negative was going to come back on them.

“A lot of the time, these processes work really well. It’s just that when there is a problem, it’s…hard to find a pathway to even report it or get help. In health, we have very structured processes. In universities you have an integrity office. But for these other government agencies…there’s no one responsible and no one you can complain to.”

The paper says agencies’ research review guidelines should be amended to include “reasonable timeframes”, “clear” dispute resolution processes and “appropriate boundaries” on the types of edits allowed, with suppression of results never permitted. The authors also back calls for a national research integrity office.

Tweaks aimed at protecting confidentiality, curbing security risks, satisfying copyright rules or ensuring “appropriate disclaimers” can be in the public interest, the paper concedes. “We’re not saying that government organisations have no control over these things,” Brandenburg said.

“We’re just saying, let’s put some limits. Let’s [have] better policy around this, and maybe…national infrastructure.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com