GRF · Research Nexus
Research integrity
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.
Research integrity in seven parts.
- 01The questionResearch integrity: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsWhat integrity practice asks
- 06MechanismsWhat threatens integrity
- 07Methods and limitsPractices that protect integrity
Research integrity: how the risk develops.
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.
Incentives distort
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.
Errors propagate
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.
Interests go undeclared
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 Where declarations are incomplete or unpublished, readers and review panels cannot weigh them, and trust erodes when they surface later.
Correction lags
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.
Evidence synthesis workspace.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Evidence synthesis workspace
Research integrity · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-27
- Records found2507
- Screened2463Active
- Included36Normal
- Reviewer agreement0.78kappaNormal
Systematic review
- QuestionPICO
- Protocolregistered
- Search6 databases
- Screentwo reviewers
- Extractform v2
- Appraisecertainty
- Briefpolicy owner
Certainty of evidence
| Reduced losses | 14 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 6 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 5 | Very low | Unclear |
What is measured, and how well.
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 | Published statistics |
| 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 |
How research integrity is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Accountability cycle
How commitments on research integrity are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
Where the evidence comes from.
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 |
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
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 |
Outputs this topic produces
- Comparative briefs on how institutions, funders and journals divide integrity responsibilities
- Methods seminars on detecting selective reporting and on statistical review
- Dialogue records on correction practice, describing process and never individual cases
- Peer learning briefs on declaring and publishing conflicts of interest
What integrity practice asks.
- Were methods, data and analysis reported fully enough for others to check them?
- Were conflicts of interest, including funding, disclosed and managed?
- When errors were found, were they corrected openly and promptly?
- Are the incentives in this research system rewarding rigour or only output?
What threatens integrity.
Pressure to publish
Rewards for novel, positive results encourage selective reporting and overstated conclusions.
Interests
Funding, affiliations and personal stakes can shape questions, methods and interpretation.
Reluctance to retract
Errors are often corrected slowly or quietly, so flawed findings continue to be cited and used.
Why now: research integrity codes such as the ALLEA European Code of Conduct (revised 2023) are being applied to new pressures, including generative AI in research and fast-track publication during emergencies. Research Nexus convenes institutions on how integrity is kept when evidence is needed quickly, and records the practices they agree.
Practices that protect integrity.
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.
- 01
Peer review
Expert review before publication. Limits: reviewers rarely have access to data and code, and review misses many errors.
- 02
Pre-registration and registered reports
Stating hypotheses and methods before results are known. Limits: suits confirmatory research better than exploratory work.
- 03
Open data and code
Sharing materials so others can reproduce analyses, supported by causal inference and statistical review. Limits: privacy and commercial constraints.
- 04
Conflict disclosure and correction policies
Clear rules for disclosure and for correcting or retracting work. Limits: only as good as their enforcement.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Probability and statisticsBuilding bibliometric indicators · Detecting selective reportingApplied here
- 02Policy, institutional and decision scienceComparing science advice systems · Mapping integrity proceduresApplied here
- 03Causal inference and impact evaluationEvaluating funder policy changes · Assessing knowledge brokerage schemesApplied here
Questions and answers.
Does a rising retraction count mean more misconduct?
What is the difference between a correction and a retraction?
Who investigates misconduct?
Will Research Nexus discuss individual cases?
Can I report research misconduct to Research Nexus?
Is a correction a sign of failure?
Are dialogue participants' conflicts disclosed?
Why does integrity matter more for risk research?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. 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.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.