Skip to content


Research and publication ethics

Section edited by Stephanie Boughton and Maria Kowalczuk.

This Section considers manuscripts on all aspects of research and publication ethics, including, but not limited to, the ethics of research designs, ethical approval, consent, authorship and contributorship, competing interests and all forms of research and publication misconduct on the part of authors, reviewers and editors. The Section also welcomes manuscripts focused on the effects of academic reward systems on publication behaviour, journal funding and income sources, and relations between editors and publishers and editorial freedom.

  1. Content type: Research

    Reducing the number of animals used in experiments has become a priority for the governments of many countries. For these reductions to occur, animal-free alternatives must be made more available and, cruciall...

    Authors: S. Bressers, H. van den Elzen, C. Gräwe, D. van den Oetelaar, P. H. A. Postma and S. K. Schoustra

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:8

    Published on:

  2. Content type: Methodology

    The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there a...

    Authors: Tamarinde L. Haven, Marije Esther Evalien de Goede, Joeri K. Tijdink and Frans Jeroen Oort

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:7

    Published on:

  3. Content type: Commentary

    A large number of scientists and several news platforms have, over the last few years, been speaking of a replication crisis in various academic disciplines, especially the biomedical and social sciences. This...

    Authors: Rik Peels

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:2

    Published on:

  4. Content type: Commentary

    The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms ...


    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:15

    Published on:

    The Commentary to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:14

  5. Content type: Commentary

    Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but ...

    Authors: Zen Faulkes

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:12

    Published on:

  6. Content type: Commentary

    This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Jou...

    Authors: Mark Hooper, Virginia Barbour, Anne Walsh, Stephanie Bradbury and Jane Jacobs

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:2

    Published on:

  7. Content type: Methodology

    Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely re...

    Authors: Stéphane Boyer, Takayoshi Ikeda, Marie-Caroline Lefort, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte and Jason M. Schmidt

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:18

    Published on:

  8. Content type: Commentary

    Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research ...

    Authors: Stacey A. Page and Jeffrey Nyeboer

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:14

    Published on:

  9. Content type: Research

    The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and t...

    Authors: Anthony Bozzo, Kamal Bali, Nathan Evaniew and Michelle Ghert

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:5

    Published on:

  10. Content type: Research

    Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more importa...

    Authors: Lex M. Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C. Martinson and Gerben ter Riet

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:17

    Published on:

  11. Content type: Commentary

    We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Adviso...

    Authors: Liisa Räsänen and Erja Moore

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:15

    Published on:

  12. Content type: Research

    Plagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ens...

    Authors: Janet R. Higgins, Feng-Chang Lin and James P. Evans

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:13

    Published on:

  13. Content type: Research

    In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in th...

    Authors: Paul E. van der Vet and Harm Nijveen

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:3

    Published on:

  14. Content type: Review

    Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing ...

    Authors: Adam G. Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl and Florence T. Bourgeois

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:1

    Published on: