Clusters & Sub-clusters

11 Research Integrity

7 sub-clusters · 159 references

Research Integrity (RI) encompasses the moral and professional standards that ensure research is trustworthy, transparent, and ethical from inception to publication​. Traditionally, RI efforts have centered on preventing misconduct—the blatant fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) that betrays the core of science. Modern perspectives, however, advocate a holistic vision: cultivating a culture of responsible, equitable, and open research practices that goes beyond avoiding misconduct to actively promoting excellence and fairness. Supervision, mentorship, and everyday collegial relations have an important part in cultivating a culture of research integrity and shaping what “good practice” looks like in labs and teams to new researchers. This includes how power dynamics, authorship, and credit are negotiated. Institutions matter too, policies, incentives, workload, and leadership either enable or erode integrity. RI is intrinsically linked with the Open Science movement. Both strive to make research more transparent and accountable, thereby strengthening credibility and public trust​. Open Science initiatives (e.g. data sharing, preregistration, open access) can make misconduct easier to detect and discourage, while fostering norms of honesty and rigor. Conversely, RI provides the ethical foundation for openness – emphasizing values like honesty, accountability, respect, and fairness that guide how openness is pursued. By making research integrity “possible, easy, normative, and rewarding” (Haven et al., 2022)​, institutions and communities create an environment where ethical, inclusive, and rigorous research thrives. Ultimately, RI is about more than rule-following; it is about embedding integrity as a fundamental ethos of research design, conduct, and dissemination – ensuring science advances knowledge and the public good in tandem.[at]

Principles and Frameworks of Research Integrity

This sub-cluster covers the core principles, codes, and global frameworks that define research integrity. It introduces the fundamental values (e.g. honesty, rigor, transparency, accountability, respect) that underpin responsible science​. Key international statements and guidelines – such as the Singapore Statement (2010) and ALLEA’s European Code of Conduct (2017) – articulate universal norms and responsibilities for researchers. They emphasize that integrity spans all stages of research, from study design and data collection to authorship and peer review. Foundational documents (e.g. the U.S. National Academies 2017 report) situate RI in a broader context, calling for supportive research environments and institutional policies that foster ethical behavior. By studying these frameworks, one gains insight into how core values (e.g., honesty, transparency, accountability, respect) are operationalized into norms and good research practice across the research cycle. Explicitly articulated in the Netherlands Code of Conduct and agreed upon by the global research community “doing the right thing” means not only avoiding misconduct but proactively promoting openness, accountability, and social responsibility in science with clear links between specific practices and potential breaches or allegations.

  • ALLEA – All European Academies. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Revised Edition). – European guidance emphasizing honesty, reliability, respect, and accountability in all research practices.
  • Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8
  • de Ridder, J., Bouter, L., Haven, T., Peels, R., Tijdink, J., & Zeegers, M. P. (2023). In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder. Accountability in Research, 30(5), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599
  • Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
  • Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., Fuster, G. G., Heinrichs, B., Horbach, S., Jacobsen, I. S., Janssen, J., Kaiser, M., Lerouge, I., van der Meulen, B., de Rijcke, S., Saretzki, T., Sutrop, M., Tazewell, M., Varantola, K., … Zöller, M. (2018). Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
  • Hastings, R., Labib, K., Lechner, I., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., & Evans, N. (2022). Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review. Science and Public Policy, 50(2), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac067
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Hiney, M., Kavouras, P., Mejlgaard, N., Allum, N., Aubert Bonn, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Elizondo, A. R., Föger, N., Kaltenbrunner, W., Konach, T., Labib, K., Marušić, A., … Tijdink, J. K. (2022). Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: Recommendations for research funders. PLOS Biology, 20(8), e3001773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001773
  • KNAW, NFU, NWO, TO2-Federatie, Vereniging Hogescholen, & VSNU. (2018). Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschappelijke integriteit [Data set]. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-2cj-nvwu
  • Kombe, F., Anunobi, E. N., Tshifugula, N. P., Wassenaar, D., Njadingwe, D., Mwalukore, S., Chinyama, J., Randrianasolo, B., Akindeh, P., Dlamini, P. S., Ramiandrisoa, F. N., & Ranaivo, N. (2013). Promoting Research Integrity in Africa: An African Voice of Concern on Research Misconduct and the Way Forward. Developing World Bioethics, 14(3), 158–166. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12024
  • (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896
  • Peels, R., de Ridder, J., Haven, T., & Bouter, L. (2019). Value pluralism in research integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4
  • Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2015). The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research, 23(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608
  • Reyes Elizondo, A., & Kaltenbrunner, W. (2024). Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3
  • Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010). Singapore: 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. – Landmark statement outlining 4 principles and 14 responsibilities for ethical research conduct.
  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00022268
  • Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Razi, S., Glendinning, I., Sivasubramaniam, S., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Anohina-Naumeca, A., & Kravjar, J. (2019). Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09342-4
  • Tijdink, J. K., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Nuijten, M. B., & O’Neill, G. (2021). Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(4), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211018916
  • UNESCO. (2017). Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000263618 – United Nations guidelines stressing researchers’ responsibilities to society, the need for training, and the importance of an inclusive, ethical research system globally.
  • UNESCO. (2023). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science — About open science. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/about – Both OS and RI principles aim to make research transparent and accountable. Open Science helps deter and detect misconduct and normalizes rigor. Research Integrity provides the ethical base, guiding how openness is pursued;
  • World Conference on Research Integrity. (2013). Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. – Guidelines to ensure integrity, fairness, and equity in international and interdisciplinary research partnerships.

Research Misconduct: Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism

This sub-cluster focuses on the “cardinal sins” of research – intentional acts that grossly violate integrity. Research misconduct is formally defined (in many policies) as fabrication (making up data or results), falsification (manipulating research processes or data), and plagiarism (using others’ ideas or words without credit). These actions undermine the very foundation of science by injecting falsehoods and eroding trust. Students explore famous misconduct cases and their repercussions, as well as studies on how frequently scientists admit to misbehavior. Surveys suggest blatant misconduct is rare but not vanishingly so (on the order of 2%–4% of researchers, depending on field, have admitted to Fabrication, Fallisfication and Plagiarism (FFP) (Bouter, 2024), with higher percentages witnessing or suspecting it in others​ (Bouter, 2024)). Beyond statistics, readings discuss the causes and risk factors for misconduct – e.g. extreme publication pressure or inadequate oversight – and the systems in place to detect and deter FFP (institutional investigations, whistleblower protections, and sanctions like retractions). This sub-cluster sets a cautionary foundation: understanding what not to do in research, why such behavior occurs, and how the scientific community responds when the worst breaches of integrity come to light.

Questionable Research Practices and Responsible Research Practices

Not all integrity problems are as black-and-white as FFP. This sub-cluster examines the gray zone of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) – behaviors that don’t blatantly falsify data, yet still deviate from good scientific practice and can undermine credibility. Examples include p-hacking (tuning analyses until results are significant), HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known), selective reporting of only positive outcomes, incomplete methods reporting, inadequate data management, or sidestepping human subjects protocols. Studies have revealed alarmingly high rates of QRPs: for instance, a survey in psychology found over half of researchers admitted to at least one QRP such as selectively reporting studies or unexpected analyses​ - (Bouter, 2024). QRPs collectively contribute to the reproducibility crisis by inflating false-positive findings and distorting the literature​ - (Bouter, 2024). To address this, the research community has begun promoting Responsible Research Practices (RRPs) – methodological reforms and Open Science techniques designed to curb QRPs. These include preregistration of study plans (to prevent HARKing), sharing data and code (to increase transparency), publishing replication studies and null results, and using reporting guidelines. Embracing RRPs can make honest, thorough research the path of least resistance. In sum, this sub-cluster highlights the continuum between outright misconduct and ideal practices, stressing that everyday decisions in analysis and reporting are central to research integrity.

  • Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8
  • Fillon, A. A., Michaelides, M., Gopalakrishna, G., Es-Sadki, N., & Notten, A. (2024). Prevalence of questionable research practices: A survey among academic researchers in Cypriot and Greek institutions, Registered Report Stage 1. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/74r2n_v1
  • Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
  • Gopalakrishna, G., Wicherts, J. M., Vink, G., Stoop, I., van den Akker, O. R., ter Riet, G., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands. F1000Research, 11, 471. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110664.2
  • Haven, T., Gopalakrishna, G., Tijdink, J., van der Schot, D., & Bouter, L. (2022). Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC Research Notes, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06169-y
  • Haven, T., Tijdink, J., Martinson, B., Bouter, L., & Oort, F. (2021). Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M. (Serge), & Halffman, W. (Willem). (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism.’ Research Policy, 48(2), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004
  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
  • Lengersdorff, L. L., & Lamm, C. (2025). With Low Power Comes Low Credibility? Toward a Principled Critique of Results From Underpowered Tests. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241296397
  • Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
  • Reyes Elizondo, A., & Kaltenbrunner, W. (2024). Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3
  • SOPs4RI. (n.d.). Dealing with breaches of research integrity. https://sops4ri.eu/tool_category/breaches/ - A curated SOPs4RI toolbox category offering practical policies and templates for handling breaches of research integrity.
  • Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Research Culture, Incentives, and Institutional Responsibilities

Research integrity is not upheld by individual virtue alone – the culture and incentive structures of academia play a decisive role. This sub-cluster examines how funding, publishing, and career advancement pressures can either encourage integrity or inadvertently foster misconduct/QRPs. A “publish or perish” climate, hypercompetition for grants, and evaluation systems focused on quantity over quality (e.g. rewarding scientists for high-impact publications, citations, and impact factors) can create perverse incentives​ (Bouter, 2024). Such pressures may tempt researchers toward sloppy or dishonest practices to secure positive findings and prestige​ (Bouter, 2024). Crucially, this sub-cluster highlights reforms aimed at aligning incentives with integrity: initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and Leiden Manifesto call for valuing rigorous methods and openness over simplistic metrics. The Hong Kong Principles (2019) advocate evaluating researchers on transparency, collaboration, and reliability rather than just output count. Institutions and funders are beginning to adopt policies (e.g. random audits, mentoring programs, or even grant lotteries) to promote a healthier research climate. By understanding these dynamics, students appreciate that sustaining RI requires top-down support: universities, journals, and funders must cultivate an environment where ethical, careful science is the most rewarded and celebrated science.

  • Allum, N., Reid, A., Bidoglia, M., Gaskell, G., Aubert-Bonn, N., Buljan, I., Fuglsang, S., Horbach, S., Kavouras, P., Marušić, A., Mejlgaard, N., Pizzolato, D., Roje, R., Tijdink, J., & Veltri, G. (2023). Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers. F1000Research, 12, 187. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128733.1
  • Begley, C. G., Buchan, A. M., & Dirnagl, U. (2015). Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature, 525(7567), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/525025a
  • Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8
  • Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
  • Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., Fuster, G. G., Heinrichs, B., Horbach, S., Jacobsen, I. S., Janssen, J., Kaiser, M., Lerouge, I., van der Meulen, B., de Rijcke, S., Saretzki, T., Sutrop, M., Tazewell, M., Varantola, K., … Zöller, M. (2018). Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
  • Gelman, A., & Higgs, M. (2025). Interrogating the “cargo cult science” metaphor. Theory and Society, 54(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-025-09614-6
  • Haven, T. L., Bouter, L. M., Smulders, Y. M., & Tijdink, J. K. (2019). Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0217931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931
  • Haven, T. L., de Goede, M. E. E., Tijdink, J. K., & Oort, F. J. (2019). Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6
  • Haven, T., Pasman, H. R., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., & Tijdink, J. (2020). Researchers’ Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3017–3036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8
  • Haven, T., Tijdink, J., Martinson, B., Bouter, L., & Oort, F. (2021). Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w
  • Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. M. (2019). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210599
  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. Ten principles for responsible research evaluation (e.g. avoid misplaced concreteness of metrics, protect qualitative judgment, account for diversity in fields). A direct response to metric-driven distortions, aiming to realign incentives with integrity and quality. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a–
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2016). Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of ‘Scientific Integrity.’ Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1461–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Sørensen, M. P., Allum, N., & Reid, A.-K. (2023). Disentangling the local context—imagined communities and researchers’ sense of belonging. Science and Public Policy, 50(4), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad017
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Hiney, M., Kavouras, P., Mejlgaard, N., Allum, N., Aubert Bonn, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Elizondo, A. R., Föger, N., Kaltenbrunner, W., Konach, T., Labib, K., Marušić, A., … Tijdink, J. K. (2022). Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: Recommendations for research funders. PLOS Biology, 20(8), e3001773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001773
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Breit, E., & Mamelund, S.-E. (2018). Organisational responses to alleged scientific misconduct: Sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensehiding. Science and Public Policy, 46(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy068
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Breit, E., Halffman, W., & Mamelund, S.-E. (2020). On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1595–1623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00202-8
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Fishberg, R., Ulpts, S., & Degn, L. (2024). Thou Shalt Not! – How the institutional afterlife of research misconduct scandals shapes research integrity training. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2414500
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Cole, N. L., Kopeinik, S., Leitner, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., & Tijdink, J. (2025). How to get there from here? Barriers and enablers on the road towards reproducibility in research [Manuscript]. OSF. https://osf.io/n28sg/
  • Knibbe, M., de Rijcke, S., & Penders, B. (2025). Care for the soul of science: Equity and virtue in reform and reformation. Cultures of Science, 8(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083251329632
  • Crespo López, M. de los Á., Pallise Perello, C., de Ridder, J., & Labib, K. (2025). Open Science as Confused: Contradictory and Conflicting Discourses in Open Science Guidance to Researchers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/zr35u_v1
  • Labib, K., Roje, R., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., Evans, N., Marušić, A., Mokkink, L., & Tijdink, J. (2021). Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9
  • Labib, K., Tijdink, J., Sijtsma, K., Bouter, L., Evans, N., & Widdershoven, G. (2023). How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity? Accountability in Research, 31(7), 917–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2191192
  • Macleod, M. (2022). Improving the reproducibility and integrity of research: what can different stakeholders contribute? BMC Research Notes, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06030-2
  • Malički, M., Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Bouter, L., Mulligan, A., & ter Riet, G. (2023). Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0270054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270054
  • Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Reyes Elizondo, A., Foeger, N., Hiney, M., Kaltenbrunner, W., Labib, K., Marušić, A., Sørensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Ščepanović, R., … Veltri, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586(7829), 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
  • Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
  • Research integrity is much more than misconduct. (2019). Nature, 570(7759), 5–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01727-0
  • Raff, J. W. (2013). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Biology Open, 2(6), 533–534. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.20135330
  • Ross-Hellauer, Tony & Aubert Bonn, Noémie & Horbach, Serge P. J. M., (2023). Understanding the social and political dimensions of research(er) assessment: Interpretative flexibility and hidden criteria. SocArXiv https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/e5uyv_v1.html
  • Ross-Hellauer, T., Aubert Bonn, N., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Understanding the social and political dimensions of research(er) assessment: evaluative flexibility and hidden criteria in promotion processes at research institutes. Research Evaluation, 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae055
  • Ščepanović, R., Labib, K., Buljan, I., Tijdink, J., & Marušić, A. (2021). Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
  • Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication Pressure and Scientific Misconduct in Medical Scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614552421
  • Trueblood, J. S., Allison, D. B., Field, S. M., Fishbach, A., Gaillard, S. D. M., Gigerenzer, G., Holmes, W. R., Lewandowsky, S., Matzke, D., Murphy, M. C., Musslick, S., Popov, V., Roskies, A. L., ter Schure, J., & Teodorescu, A. R. (2025). The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(5). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121
  • van Drimmelen, T., Slagboom, M. N., Reis, R., Bouter, L. M., & van der Steen, J. T. (2024). Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00481-5
  • Wang, J., Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2023). Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes. Science and Public Policy, 51(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052
  • Wang, J., Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2025). The Journal Attention Cycle: Indicators as Assets in the Chinese Scientific Publishing Economy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 51(1), 218–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439251322530

Publication, Peer Review, and Research Integrity

This sub-cluster examines integrity issues in the dissemination phase of science – covering authorship ethics, peer review, and publication practices. It tackles questions like: Who deserves authorship and in what order? How to avoid ghost authorship (uncredited contributors) or gift/guest authorship (undeserved credit)? Students learn about authorship guidelines (e.g., International Committee of Medical Journal Editor ((ICMJE)) criteria) designed to ensure fair credit and accountability. We also discuss the role of peer review as a quality safeguard and the integrity challenges it faces – from biases in reviewer selection to cases of peer review fraud. The rise of predatory journals (which subvert quality standards for profit) is a contemporary integrity threat, potentially flooding literature with unvetted findings. Additionally, this sub-cluster emphasizes the importance of corrections and retractions as part of the self-correction mechanism of science. We explore whether increasing retraction rates signify improving vigilance or persistent problems​ (Bouter, 2024). Key themes include the responsibilities of journals (via ethics committees like the Committee on Publication Ethics ((COPE)) and editors in handling misconduct or honest errors, and emerging innovations like open peer review to improve transparency. By engaging with these topics, future researchers learn to navigate the publication process with integrity – ensuring proper attribution, objective review, and willingness to correct the record. Key Readings:

Education and Training in Research Integrity

Fostering a culture of integrity requires education. This sub-cluster looks at how researchers are taught (and learn) responsible conduct. Many jurisdictions and funders mandate Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for students and staff – covering topics from data management and mentoring to publication ethics and conflicts of interest. We evaluate the impact of these educational programs: what works, what doesn’t, and how to innovate. Early meta-analyses showed that standard ethics training has modest positive effects on knowledge and attitudes​ (Antes et al., 2009)​, especially when using interactive, case-based approaches rather than dry lectures​ (Antes et al., 2009). Contemporary efforts aim to go beyond simply knowing the rules – to shape researchers’ ethical decision-making skills and “virtue ethics” (instilling values like honesty and care). We discuss novel training interventions, such as engaging researchers in moral case deliberation on real dilemmas or training faculty to model and transmit RI principles (e.g. “train-the-trainer” programs for PhD supervisors​ (Bouter, 2024). Policy initiatives like the Cape Town Statement (2022) emphasize that RI education should be continuous, assessed, and supported by institutions, not a one-off workshop. Overall, this sub-cluster reinforces that integrity is a skill set and mindset that can be nurtured. By empowering researchers through education, the community can proactively prevent misconduct and normalize ethical best practices as the default mode of work.

  • Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380
  • Axfors, C., Malički, M., & Goodman, S. N. (2024). Research rigor and reproducibility in research education: A CTSA institutional survey. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.10
  • DuBois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T. (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822248
  • Haven, T. L., Abunijela, S., & Hildebrand, N. (2023). Biomedical supervisors’ role modeling of open science practices. ELife, 12. CLOCKSS. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83484
  • Haven, T., Bouter, L., Mennen, L., & Tijdink, J. (2022). Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates. Accountability in Research, 30(8), 574–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2071153
  • Haven, T., Plemmons, D., & Chau, D.-M. (2025). Editorial: Evaluating supervision and research leadership in promoting responsible research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1670586
  • Haven, T. (2025). It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research. Accountability in Research, 32(5), 717–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584
  • Haven, T. L., Molewijk, B., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., Blom, F., & Tijdink, J. (2023). Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study. Research Ethics, 20(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231198402
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Fishberg, R., Ulpts, S., & Degn, L. (2024). Thou Shalt Not! – How the institutional afterlife of research misconduct scandals shapes research integrity training. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2414500
  • Inguaggiato, G., Labib, K., Evans, N., Blom, F., Bouter, L., & Widdershoven, G. (2023). The Contribution of Moral Case Deliberation to Teaching RCR to PhD Students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00431-7
  • Kalichman, M. (2013). A brief history of RCR education. Accountability in research, 20(5-6), 380-394. doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822260 – Traces the development of research ethics education from the 1980s to present. Reviews U.S. and international efforts to require training and the evolution of content, highlighting persistent challenges in assessing effectiveness and engagement.
  • Katsarov, J., Andorno, R., Krom, A., & van den Hoven, M. (2021). Effective Strategies for Research Integrity Training—a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9
  • Kohrs, F. E., Auer, S., Bannach-Brown, A., Fiedler, S., Haven, T. L., Heise, V., Holman, C., Azevedo, F., Bernard, R., Bleier, A., Bössel, N., Cahill, B. P., Castro, L. J., Ehrenhofer, A., Eichel, K., Frank, M., Frick, C., Friese, M., Gärtner, A., … Weissgerber, T. L. (2023). Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. ELife, 12. CLOCKSS. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.89736
  • Kreeger, P. K. (2024). Rethinking the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Course. Biomedical Engineering Education, 4(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-023-00131-5
  • Lacey, S., Haven, T., Santos, R., Farrelly, T., Murray, M., & Kavouras, P. (2025). A roadmap to good practice for training supervisors and leadership: a European perspective. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1531467
  • Labib, K., Pizzolato, D., Stappers, P. J., Evans, N., Lechner, I., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., Dierickx, K., Bergema, K., & Tijdink, J. (2023). Using co-creation methods for research integrity guideline development – how, what, why and when? Accountability in Research, 31(6), 531–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2154154
  • Labib, K., Roje, R., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., Evans, N., Marušić, A., Mokkink, L., & Tijdink, J. (2021). Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9
  • Labib, K., Evans, N., Pizzolato, D., Aubert Bonn, N., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., Konach, T., Langendam, M., Dierickx, K., & Tijdink, J. (2023). Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00444-2
  • Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Reyes Elizondo, A., Foeger, N., Hiney, M., Kaltenbrunner, W., Labib, K., Marušić, A., Sørensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Ščepanović, R., … Veltri, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586(7829), 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
  • Pizzolato, D., & Dierickx, K. (2021). Stakeholders’ perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z
  • Pizzolato, D., Labib, K., Skoulikaris, N., Evans, N., Roje, R., Kavouras, P., Aubert Bonn, N., Dierickx, K., & Tijdink, J. (2022). How can research institutions support responsible supervision and leadership? Accountability in Research, 31(3), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2112033
  • Rasmussen, L. M. (2023). Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2239145
  • Salwén, H., Holm, C., Achermann, G., Asaduzzaman, M., Blom, F., Dwojak-Matras, A., Groenink, L., Gruber, B., van den Hoven, M., Ristic, D. I., Iphofen, R., & Priess-Buchheit, J. (2025). Teaching research integrity: a manual of good practices: an outline. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-025-00186-7
  • Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global Research Integrity Training. Science, 340(6132), 552–553. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236373
  • van den Hoven, M., Lindemann, T., Zollitsch, L., & Prieß-Buchheit, J. (2023). A Taxonomy for Research Integrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x
  • Hoven, M. vd, Mol, H., & Verhoeff, R. (2023). Evaluating empowerment towards responsible conduct of research in a small private online course. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00139-y
  • van den Hoven, M., & van Loon, M. (2025). Responsible conduct of research [Online course]. Utrecht University. https://www.coursera.org/learn/research-integrity
  • Watts, Logan & Medeiros, Kelsey & Mulhearn, Tyler & Steele, Logan & Connelly, Shane & Mumford, Michael. (2017). Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences. Ethics & Behavior. 27. 351-384. 10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025.

Research Integrity, Social Responsibility, and Equity

This sub-cluster broadens the scope of research integrity to include the social and justice dimensions of research practice. It asks: What obligations do researchers have to society and to the communities affected by their work? Traditional RI focuses on truthfulness and accuracy, but integrity also entails conducting research responsibly with regard to its societal impact. Topics here include inclusive citation and recognition practices (avoiding exclusion or bias in credit), ensuring research agendas are not harmful or exploitative, and global equity in collaborations. For example, the Montreal Statement (2013) provides guidance for equitable partnerships, stressing respect, clarity, and fairness when researchers from high-income and low-income settings collaborate. We also explore contemporary issues like “ethics dumping” – exporting unethical research to regions with lax oversight – and the global efforts to counter it with codes of conduct​ (Zhaksylyk et al., 2023). Open Science intersects with equity by pushing for accessibility of knowledge and participation from diverse stakeholders (e.g. citizen science, indigenous knowledge considerations). Readings encourage reflection on how striving for integrity means striving for a research enterprise that is not only reliable but also just. This includes acknowledging and addressing structural biases (racism, sexism, colonialism) in research contexts – because an equitable, inclusive research culture is integral to truly responsible science.

  • ALL European Academies (ALLEA). (2021). Truth, Trust and Expertise – The Ethics of Science and Public Engagement. Report found at the bottom of page alongside six other reports – A report examining the relationship between scientific integrity and public trust. It covers ethical science communication, avoiding hype, and the duty of researchers to engage honestly with society. Highlights that maintaining public trust is an aspect of research integrity, requiring transparency and humility on the part of experts.
  • Boga, M., Davies, A., Kamuya, D., Kinyanjui, S. M., Kivaya, E., Kombe, F., Lang, T., Marsh, V., Mbete, B., Mlamba, A., Molyneux, S., Mulupi, S., & Mwalukore, S. (2011). Strengthening the Informed Consent Process in International Health Research through Community Engagement: The KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme Experience. PLoS Medicine, 8(9), e1001089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001089
  • Chatfield, Kate & Schroeder, Doris & Singh, Michelle & Chennells, Roger & herissone-kelly, peter. (2019). Equitable Research Partnerships A Global Code of Conduct to Counter Ethics Dumping. 32–34. ISBN: 978-3-030-15745-6 – Presents a Global Code of Conduct aimed at preventing researchers from exploiting vulnerable populations or regions with weaker oversight. Offers four pillars (fairness, respect, care, honesty) to guide projects in low-resource settings, aligning integrity with social justice.
  • Horn, L., Alba, S., Blom, F., Faure, M., Flack-Davison, E., Gopalakrishna, G., IJsselmuiden, C., Labib, K., Lavery, J. V., Masekela, R., Schroeder, D., Simon, N., Van Zyl, C., Vasconcelos, S., Visagie, R., & Kombe, F. (2022). Fostering Research Integrity through the promotion of fairness, equity and diversity in research collaborations and contexts: Towards a Cape Town Statement (pre-conference discussion paper). https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bf286
  • Horn, L., Alba, S., Gopalakrishna, G., Kleinert, S., Kombe, F., Lavery, J. V., & Visagie, R. G. (2023). The Cape Town Statement on fairness, equity and diversity in research. Nature, 615(7954), 790–793. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00855-y
  • Jao, I., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Bull, S., Parker, M., Kamuya, D., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2015). Involving Research Stakeholders in Developing Policy on Sharing Public Health Research Data in Kenya. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(3), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615592385
  • Jao, I., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Bull, S., Parker, M., Kamuya, D., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2015). Research Stakeholders’ Views on Benefits and Challenges for Public Health Research Data Sharing in Kenya: The Importance of Trust and Social Relations. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0135545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135545
  • Kamuya, D. M., Marsh, V., Kombe, F. K., Geissler, P. W., & Molyneux, S. C. (2013). Engaging Communities to Strengthen Research Ethics in Low‐Income Settings: Selection and Perceptions of Members of a Network of Representatives in Coastal Kenya. Developing World Bioethics, 13(1), 10–20. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12014
  • Knibbe, M., de Rijcke, S., & Penders, B. (2025). Care for the soul of science: Equity and virtue in reform and reformation. Cultures of Science, 8(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083251329632
  • Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of Science after Feminism. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732623.001.0001
  • Labib, K., & Evans, N. (2021). Gender, diversity, and the responsible assessment of researchers. PLOS Biology, 19(4), e3001036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001036
  • Crespo López, M. de los Á., Pallise Perello, C., de Ridder, J., & Labib, K. (2025). Open Science as Confused: Contradictory and Conflicting Discourses in Open Science Guidance to Researchers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/zr35u_v1
  • Labib, K. (2025). Research Integrity and Research Fairness: Harmonious or in Conflict? Canadian Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.7202/1118901ar
  • Marsh, V., Kombe, F., Fitzpatrick, R., Williams, T. N., Parker, M., & Molyneux, S. (2013). Consulting communities on feedback of genetic findings in international health research: sharing sickle cell disease and carrier information in coastal Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-41
  • Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013). – Articulates 20 principles to ensure ethical and equitable conduct in international collaborations (e.g. fair division of labor and credit, respect for local norms, benefit-sharing, transparency between partners). Emphasizes that integrity requires fairness when research transcends borders and cultures.
  • Njue, M., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2014). What Are Fair Study Benefits in International Health Research? Consulting Community Members in Kenya. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e113112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113112
  • Nyangulu, W. J. (2023). Global health collaborative research: beyond mandatory collaboration to mandatory authorship. Global Health Research and Policy, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-023-00334-x
  • Rasmussen, L. M. (2023). Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2239145
  • Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University Press. – Discusses challenges of maintaining RI in a global context: varying cultural norms, differing regulations, and issues like intellectual property, benefit sharing, and authorship across borders. Affirms that core RI principles are universal and must underpin international scientific collaborations and technology transfer.
JUST-OS