Improving Systems to Promote Research Integrity


Research integrity is manifested thru the use of honest and verifiable research methods with adherence to accepted professional codes. Recently, trustworthiness in research has been challenged by various forms of research misconduct, such as analytical flexibility, data dredging, HARKing (hypothesis after research knowledge), plagiarism, and selective and distorted reporting. Drivers of research misconduct have been identified as institutional--publication incentives to pursue a career, researcher--metric of success is publication volume, and the journal-- more likely to accept papers with positive. The open-access mode propelling the proliferation of predatory journals is causing a dilemma to sound research reporting. Measures were established to curtail research integrity challenges, such as study registration, open data, common reporting standards, a team of rivals, and blind analysis. This report will elaborate and provide insight into what influenced research misconduct, how it can be mitigated, and how to maintain a credible research environment.

  1. National Institutes of Health. What is research integrity [Internet]. National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; [cited 2022Oct12]. Available from:,accepted%20professional%20codes%20or%20norms.
  2. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the royal society of medicine. 2006 Apr;99(4):178-82.
  3. Butterfield F. HARVARD SUSPENDS DOCTOR FOR FRAUD. New York Times. 1981Dec16;
  4. Historical Background [Internet]. The Office of Research Integtity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Available from:,site%20was%20initiated%20in%201995.
  5. Steneck NH. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Office of Research Integrity; 2007.
  6. Lin Y. Case Summary: [Internet]. Office of Research Integrity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; [cited 2022Oct12]. Available from:
  7. Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, Martinson BC, Ter Riet G. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research integrity and peer review. 2016 Dec;1(1):1-8.
  8. Holtfreter K, Reisig MD, Pratt TC, Mays RD. The perceived causes of research misconduct among faculty members in the natural, social, and applied sciences. Studies in Higher Education. 2020 Nov 1;45(11):2162-74.
  9. Pratt TC, Reisig MD, Holtfreter K, Golladay KA. Scholars’ preferred solutions for research misconduct: results from a survey of faculty members at America’s top 100 research universities. Ethics & Behavior. 2019 Oct 3;29(7):510-30.
  10. Gorman DM, Elkins AD, Lawley M. A systems approach to understanding and improving research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2019 Feb;25(1):211-29.
  11. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol [Internet]. 2020;18(7):e3000737. Available from:
  12. Ayodele FO, Yao L, Haron H. Promoting ethics and integrity in management academic research: Retraction initiative. Science and engineering ethics. 2019 Apr;25(2):357-82.
  13. Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PloS one. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127556.
  14. Edwards MA, Roy S. Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science. 2017;34.
  15. Zuckerman H. The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and Nobel surrogates in the reward system of science. Theoretical medicine. 1992 Jun;13(2):217-31.
  16. Quan W, Chen B, Shu F. Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2017; 69:486-502.
  17. Hosseini M, Lewis J. The norms of authorship credit: Challenging the definition of authorship in The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accountability in research. 2020 Feb 17;27(2):80-98.
  18. Hvistendahl M. China’s publication bazaar. Science. 2013; 324:1035-9.
  19. Lehrer D, Leschke J, lhachimi s, et al. Negative results in social science.European Polictical Science. 2007; 6:51-68.
  20. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012; 90:891-904.
  21. Ferguson CJ, Heene M. A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012; 7:555-61.
  22. Johnson, VE. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Physical Sciences PINAS. 2013; 110:19313-7.
  23. Franco A, Malhotra N, simonovits G. publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014; 345:1503-5.
  24. Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998; 2:196-217.
  25. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE. 2009.
  26. Ioannidis JP. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS biology. 2018 Mar 13;16(3): e2005468.
  27. Genova G, de la Vara JL. The problem is not professional publishing, but the publish-or-perish culture. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 25:617-9.
  28. Erasmus A, Holman B, Ioannidis IPA. Data-dredging bias. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2022; 27:209-11.
  29. Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA. What does research reproducibility mean? Sc Transl Med. 2016; 8:341-53.
  30. Ioannidis JP. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS biology. 2018 Mar 13;16(3): e2005468.
  31. Van Bavel JJ, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady WJ, Reinero DA. Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016 Jun 7;113(23):6454-9.
  32. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012; 489:179.
  33. Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol [Internet]. 2018;32(9):1441–9. Available from:
  34. Krawczyk F, Kulczycki E. How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2021 Mar 1;47(2):102271.
  35. Mejlgaard N, Bouter LM, Gaskell G, Kavouras P, Allum N, Bendtsen A. Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature. 2020.586;358-60.
  36. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED). 2015 Feb 23;26(2):187-200.
  37. Yi N, Nemery B, Dierickx K. Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers’ an online survey in Europe and China. BMD Medical Ethics. 2020; 21:44-60.
  38. Li D, Cornelis G. Differing perceptions concerning research misconduct between China and Flanders: a qualitative study. Accountability in Research. 2021 Feb 17;28(2):63-94.
  39. Satalkar P, Shaw D. How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland. BMC Medical Ethics. 2019 Dec;20(1):1-2.


Articles related to the one you are viewing

There are currently no results to show, please try again later

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit