Dictionary domainTrack D
Research integrity and misconduct
FFP, paper mills, retractions, COPE / ORI / UKRIO frameworks.
For implementers
Operational deployment checklist for Research integrity and misconduct: prerequisites, five deploy steps, integration notes for Pure, Symplectic Elements, Worktribe, DSpace, and more, plus the pitfalls that recur in the field.
Terms in this domain
27 terms
Whistleblower (research)
A person who, in good faith, raises a concern about possible research misconduct, breach of research integrity, or other serious wrongdoing in a research context. The label applies when the concern is reported through a recognised channel and the reporter would benefit from protections against retaliation.
Expression of concern
A formal post-publication notice issued by a journal to alert readers to substantive concerns about a published article when the journal cannot yet conclude that retraction or correction is the appropriate outcome. An expression of concern is appropriate when concerns are credible but unresolved, often pending an institutional investigation.
Correction (corrigendum)
A formal post-publication notice that amends an error in a published article without invalidating its overall conclusions. A correction is appropriate when the error is bounded and the central findings remain reliable; a retraction is appropriate when the conclusions are unreliable.
Retraction
The formal withdrawal of a published article from the literature by the journal, with a public retraction notice explaining the reason. An article is retracted when the journal determines that its findings are unreliable due to misconduct, honest error, or other invalidating factors.
Hong Kong Principles (2020)
Five principles for assessing researchers, articulated by Moher and colleagues at the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong (2019) and published in 2020, designed to incentivise responsible research practices through hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. An institution adheres to the principles if its assessment processes embody all five.
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)
A short framework statement of four principles and fourteen responsibilities for the responsible conduct of research, adopted at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore in 2010. It is referenced as a foundational global statement rather than a regulatory instrument.
ENRIO
The European Network of Research Integrity Offices, a network of national research-integrity bodies and offices across European countries that share practices, case experience, and policy positions. An organisation joins ENRIO by application from a national body with a research-integrity remit.
UKRIO
The UK Research Integrity Office, an independent advisory body providing confidential, expert advice on research integrity matters to UK research organisations and researchers. A query falls within UKRIO's remit if it concerns the conduct or governance of research in a UK context.
ORI (US Office of Research Integrity)
The US federal office within the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees and monitors investigations of research misconduct involving Public Health Service-funded research. A case is in ORI's jurisdiction if PHS funds (NIH, CDC, FDA, etc.) supported the research at issue.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
An international membership organisation providing standards, guidance, and case-by-case advice on publication ethics to editors and publishers. A journal is a COPE member if it adheres to the COPE Core Practices and pays the membership fee.
Citation cartel
A group of authors, editors, or journals that systematically cite one another's work beyond what the science would warrant, in order to inflate citation-based metrics. A pattern is cartel-like when the citation flows between members are dramatically denser than flows to comparable non-members.
Tortured phrases
Unusual paraphrases of established technical terminology that result from automated synonym substitution, often used to evade plagiarism detection. A phrase is tortured when a domain reader recognises it as a mangled rendition of a standard term.
Paper mill
A commercial operation that produces fabricated or low-effort manuscripts and sells authorship slots, or that brokers acceptance of such manuscripts into journals. A submission originates from a paper mill if the underlying research was not conducted by the named authors or was fabricated to order.
Image duplication
The undisclosed reuse of an image, or portion of an image, to represent a different experimental condition, time point, or sample. Duplication is problematic when the figure legend implies the images are distinct sources.
Image manipulation
Adjustment of a research image (gel, blot, microscopy, etc.) in a way that misrepresents the underlying data or violates journal image-integrity policies. Manipulation is problematic when it changes the conclusion a reader would draw or when it would not survive disclosure.
Coercive citation
The practice by editors or reviewers of pressuring authors to add citations that are not scientifically warranted, typically to the journal or to the reviewer's own work, as a condition of acceptance. A request is coercive when no substantive scientific reason is given and the citations would not otherwise be added.
Gift authorship
The inclusion as an author of a person who did not meet the substantive authorship criteria, typically as a courtesy, in exchange for resources, or for prestige. An authorship is a gift when removing the named person would not require any change to the manuscript.
Ghost authorship
The undisclosed substantial contribution to a manuscript by a person not listed as an author or named in the acknowledgements. A contribution is ghost-written when, by ICMJE criteria, it would have warranted authorship had it been disclosed.
Authorship dispute
A disagreement between contributors over who should be listed as an author, in what order, or with what role designation. A dispute is formally recognised when raised through an institutional process or with the journal.
Salami slicing
The practice of dividing a single coherent body of research into the smallest publishable units to maximise paper count. Outputs are salami-sliced when separating them obscures rather than clarifies the research and when readers must reassemble multiple papers to understand the whole.
Duplicate publication
Publishing the same study, or substantially the same study, in more than one venue without cross-reference and editorial permission. Two articles are duplicates if they share the same hypothesis, sample, methods, and core results to a degree that a meta-analyst would not treat them as independent.
Self-plagiarism
Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work in a new publication without disclosure or appropriate citation. A reuse qualifies if a reader is led to believe the material is new when it is not.
Plagiarism
The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. A passage or idea counts as plagiarised if a reasonable reader would attribute it to the new author when the substance originated with someone else.
Falsification
Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or data such that the research record does not accurately represent the actual results. A modification qualifies if it is undisclosed and changes the conclusions a reader would draw.
Fabrication
Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if real. A finding is fabricated if no underlying experiment, observation, or measurement actually produced it.
Research misconduct
Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. An act qualifies if it is a significant departure from accepted practices, committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and proven by a preponderance of evidence.
Research integrity
The adherence to professional values and practices (honesty, rigour, transparency, accountability, fairness) such that research can be trusted by other researchers and by society. A practice exhibits research integrity if it could be openly described to peers without embarrassment or sanction.
