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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.