The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
The research record is only as reliable as the practices that review it, declare interests and correct it when it is wrong. Research integrity covers honest conduct, peer review, conflict of interest, the handling of misconduct allegations, and the correction and retraction of published work. This page sets out how integrity failures develop and spread, how integrity systems can be observed, and which institutions hold responsibility at each step.
GRF · Established · service level R0
Research integrity is the conduct of research in line with reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. It covers peer review, declaration of interests, the handling of misconduct allegations and the correction or retraction of published work. Responsibility is shared between researchers, institutions, funders, publishers and, in some countries, national integrity bodies.
For research integrity, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, true-colour imagery and night lights with place names and borders from NASA GIBS, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Hazards and exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For research integrity, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, true-colour imagery and night lights with place names and borders from NASA GIBS, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Research integrity · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-27
| Reduced losses | 14 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 6 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 5 | Very low | Unclear |
Review, conflict and correction practices. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Hiring, promotion and funding tied to publication counts and journal prestige reward speed and novelty over care. Questionable practices such as selective reporting grow where they are rewarded and rarely detected.
A flawed or fabricated study is cited, built into reviews and reused in models. Citations continue after retraction, so an error can travel into guidance long after the record has been corrected.
Financial and non-financial interests shape questions, designs and interpretation. Where declarations are incomplete or unpublished, readers and review panels cannot weigh them, and trust erodes when they surface later.
Investigations are slow, confidential and split between institutions, funders and journals with different rules. The gap between a concern being raised and a notice appearing leaves the record misleading in the meantime.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Research misconduct | Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research, the core definition used in most national codes. |
| Retraction | The formal withdrawal of a published article by the journal, used when findings are unreliable or the work involved misconduct, following guidance such as COPE's. |
| Expression of concern | A notice a journal publishes when it has doubts about an article while an investigation is under way. |
| Conflict of interest | A situation in which financial, professional or personal interests could compromise, or appear to compromise, judgement in research or review. |
| Registered report | A publication format in which the study protocol is peer reviewed and accepted before results are known, reducing selective reporting. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retractions and expressions of concern | count per thousand publications | annual | Retraction databases and publisher notices | OBSERVED |
| Time from concern to correction notice | months | per case | Publisher and institutional records | REPORTED |
| Citations to works after their retraction | count per period | annual | Bibliometric records | OBSERVED |
| Institutions with a published integrity policy and named officer | percent of institutions surveyed | periodic | Institutional disclosures | DECLARED |
| Misconduct findings reported by national bodies | count per year | annual | National integrity office reports | OFFICIAL |
| Outputs with a data availability statement | percent of outputs | annual | Publication metadata | OBSERVED |
| Preregistrations and registered reports | count per year | annual | Registry records | OBSERVED |
| Organisations committed to responsible research assessment | count of signatories | annual | DORA and CoARA signatory lists | DECLARED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Retraction Watch database, via Crossref | Retractions, corrections and expressions of concern with stated reasons | Open, Crossref terms |
| Crossref update metadata | Corrections, retractions and other updates registered by publishers against original works | Open, metadata free to reuse |
| COPE guidance and case database | Flowcharts and anonymised cases on handling integrity concerns in publishing | Free to read, COPE terms |
| National research integrity office reports | Annual reports and case summaries, such as those of the US Office of Research Integrity and national committees in Europe | Public records, terms per office |
| ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP | Trial registrations for comparing reported outcomes with planned outcomes | Public domain; terms per registry |
| OSF Registries | Preregistrations and registered report protocols across disciplines | Open, terms of service |
| DORA and CoARA signatory lists | Organisations that have committed to responsible research assessment | Public lists |
Research Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| University and institute governing bodies | How to receive, investigate and report allegations, and how to protect complainants and respondents | Comparative procedures from national codes; timelines and stall points in correction |
| National research integrity committees and offices | Which standards of evidence and sanctions apply, and what is published | Practice across jurisdictions read against the Singapore Statement and national codes |
| Journal editors and publishers | When to issue an expression of concern, a correction or a retraction | COPE guidance; correction lags and post-retraction citation patterns |
| Research funders | Whether to move assessment criteria away from journal-based metrics | DORA and CoARA commitments; evaluations of assessment reform with their limits |
Rewards for novel, positive results encourage selective reporting and overstated conclusions.
Funding, affiliations and personal stakes can shape questions, methods and interpretation.
Errors are often corrected slowly or quietly, so flawed findings continue to be cited and used.
No single practice secures integrity. Each closes some routes to error or misconduct and leaves others open, which is why mature research systems combine several and review how well they work.
Expert review before publication. Limits: reviewers rarely have access to data and code, and review misses many errors.
Stating hypotheses and methods before results are known. Limits: suits confirmatory research better than exploratory work.
Sharing materials so others can reproduce analyses, supported by causal inference and statistical review. Limits: privacy and commercial constraints.
Clear rules for disclosure and for correcting or retracting work. Limits: only as good as their enforcement.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.