Policies

As a general rule research data should always be kept for a minimum of three years from the end of a project to permit the validation of any outputs. However the MRC/UKRI sets a minimum of 10 years, or 20 years for population health and clinical studies.  Therefore, it is highly recommended that a data management policy focusing on research projects and outputs is implemented and an associated data management plan constructed. See: Guidance for Best Practice Management of Research Data.

DMP Online is a service provided by the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) that can help with the creation, review, and sharing of data management plans that meet institutional and funder requirements. The site also provides blank templates for data management plans based on the specific requirements listed in funder policy documents and holds public DMPs that are available as examples to review.  You should always refer to your funder and institutional guidance to understand the expectations regarding the archiving of research data.

In a complex Collaboration involving multiple individuals and institutions, those individuals will have multiple roles both within and outside of the Collaboration. Consequently, current or potential conflicts of interest will arise, often through circumstances entirely beyond the control of an individual or could not be foreseen. Recognising and reporting that a conflict of interest may exist, or seeking advice on a potential conflict or interaction, is entirely proper, and reflects positively on an individual’s integrity.  By having a policy in place, those in the collaboration will be clear on when conflicts may arise, how to declare them and how to manage them appropriately to avoid reputational damage to the Collaborating parties and its associated research.

In academia, authorship of papers is a key output and the position of authors on a publication can indicate responsibility and accountability with respect to the work described.  Authorship, and style of authorship, of reports and publications should be agreed upon at the start of any study intended to lead to publication. Establishing a clear policy regarding the expectations in terms of publications as soon as possible in any research collaboration is important and can prevent misunderstandings later.  The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has previously published guidance on how to define authors and contributors which can be very useful when drafting your policies on authorship if you are working in a health-related field though other fields may have different guidance. By clearly setting out the requirements for author status at the outset, it is simpler and easier to manage expectations.

A publication policy should also indicate what mandatory acknowledgements should be included and outline the explicit wording for any funding acknowledgements. 

Furthermore, it may also be useful to consider including guidance on expectations regarding open access.  RCUK requires peer‐reviewed research articles (including review articles not commissioned by publishers), which acknowledge Research Council funding, that are submitted for publication and which are published in journals or conference proceedings to be made available in an electronic format for search and re-use by others. (See: Open access - RCUK Policy and Revised guidance)

Because UKRI provides individual block grants to Universities to cover article processing charges (APCs) incurred by RCUK-funded researchers in the process of making their research available through open access, funding awards for specific grants and programmes do not include open access fees as an eligible cost.  Each university will have a process to follow when applying to access this block grant and the Frequently Asked Questions on the block grant explains how RCUK envisions the use of the block grant.  Sherpa Romeo is an online resource that aggregates and analyses publisher open access policies and summarises the publisher and open access archiving policies for each one. 

Social media ultimately aims to develop and build communities around central themes or activities by encouraging interactions rather than simply transmitting information in one direction.

A carefully considered social media account can be a positive tool when promoting or highlighting research activities. However, a poorly considered post can lead to complaints about the study and/or those involved in it.  Negative posts can pose a risk to the reputation of the project, its associated researchers, collaborators or funders. The purpose of a social media policy is to provide basic guidance when using social media to highlight the activities of a research group.