Research practices
Sound records, appropriate methods, transparent analysis, data protection, and accurate reporting support trustworthy work.
Research administration topic
Research Integrity
Research integrity is the commitment to honest, accurate, transparent, accountable, and respectful research. It includes responsible conduct throughout planning, data collection, analysis, authorship, peer review, publication, supervision, collaboration, and stewardship.
research integrity
1Clear definition2Core dimensions3Lifecycle workflow4Evidence and practice5Common questions
01
What Research Integrity Includes
Defined term: Research integrity is the commitment to honest, accurate, transparent, accountable, and respectful research. It includes responsible conduct throughout planning, data collection, analysis, authorship, peer review, publication, supervision, collaboration, and stewardship.
Scope becomes clearer when responsibilities, authority, records, and decision points are visible. The dimensions below show how the topic operates across the research enterprise.
Core dimensions
Three Connected Areas of Practice
Each area requires policy knowledge, usable processes, clear ownership, and professional judgment.
Relationships and credit
Authorship, contribution, mentoring, collaboration, conflicts, and peer review require clear expectations and fair treatment.
Institutional response
Education, advice, reporting, assessment, investigation, corrective action, and record repair must follow documented procedures.
02
A Practical Lifecycle for Research Integrity
Local structures vary, but the work generally moves through a sequence of definition, review, authorization, performance, monitoring, and learning.
- Set expectations for roles, records, data, analysis, authorship, and communication.
- Use appropriate approvals, controls, supervision, and quality checks during the work.
- Disclose limitations, changes, conflicts, and uncertainties honestly.
- Address errors or concerns promptly through the responsible route.
- Correct the scholarly and administrative record when the evidence requires it.
03
Use Evidence to Improve Decisions
Integrity is not achieved by training alone. Institutions also need workable systems, responsible leadership, safe reporting routes, fair procedures, and incentives that do not reward concealment or careless speed.
Measures should be defined carefully and interpreted with context. A faster process is not necessarily better when it creates rework, weakens oversight, or shifts hidden effort to another team.
Related resources
Continue Into Connected Topics and Guides
Use these routes to move from the broad topic into a focused workflow or decision.
Responsible Conduct of Research
Read the connected resource for deeper context, practical steps, and related questions.
Publication Ethics
Read the connected resource for deeper context, practical steps, and related questions.
Research Data Management
Read the connected resource for deeper context, practical steps, and related questions.
Common questions
Questions Readers and Contributors Ask
Is an honest error the same as misconduct?
No. Error, poor practice, policy violation, and research misconduct require different assessments. The evidence, intent, recklessness, significance, and applicable definition matter.
Who is responsible for research records?
Responsibilities may be shared among investigators, team members, institutions, sponsors, and data stewards. Expectations should be established before a dispute or departure occurs.
Why is authorship planning important?
Early, revisited discussion reduces misunderstandings and helps align credit and accountability with actual contributions.
Sources
Authoritative Context and Further Reading
These external resources provide additional policy or practice context. The journal’s own published policies govern its workflow.
Explore Research Integrity in Practice
Move into a related guide, compare connected topic hubs, or search the journal archive for relevant records.