The Malaysian Code of Responsible Conduct in Research (MCRCR) is Malaysia’s national framework for research integrity: a code of principles and expected practices that Malaysian researchers and research institutions are expected to follow, developed and endorsed at the national level rather than by any single university. It sits alongside a growing list of national research-integrity codes worldwide — comparable in role, though not in mechanism, to instruments such as the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, which the MCRCR explicitly draws on as one of its reference points.
What the MCRCR is
The MCRCR describes itself as a comprehensive, contextually-appropriate guideline aligned with international research-integrity best practice while remaining consistent with Malaysia’s own ethical and cultural context and legal requirements. It was developed through consultation across Malaysia’s research ecosystem — universities, research institutes, ministries, research funders, government agencies, NGOs, individual researchers, and legal authorities — rather than issued unilaterally by a single regulator.
Functionally, the MCRCR plays the role that a country-level research-integrity code plays elsewhere: it is not itself a law, and it does not replace the ethics-review requirements that apply to human-subjects or animal research in Malaysia. Instead, it is the reference document that defines what responsible conduct in research means nationally — the standard institutions and disciplinary bodies point to when questions of integrity or misconduct arise.
Who developed and governs it
The MCRCR was adopted and endorsed by Malaysia’s National Science Council in 2017, with the Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM) as the body that publishes, maintains, and promotes the code. To support implementation, the National Science Council established the National Committee on Research Integrity (NCRI), whose role is to educate and build awareness of the MCRCR among researchers, research institutions, the media, and the public.
This is a national coordination structure rather than a centralized enforcement one: the MCRCR sets the standard and the NCRI promotes it, but responsibility for applying the code — including handling specific allegations of misconduct — sits with individual research institutions and, where relevant, their funders and professional/regulatory bodies. That decentralized-application pattern is not unique to Malaysia; several other national codes function the same way, defining the standard nationally while leaving investigation and adjudication to the institution level (see CASRAI’s guide to Poland’s decentralized research-integrity structure for a comparable model).
Editions and what changed
The MCRCR has been published in two editions:
- 1st edition (2017): the original code, developed and adopted alongside the National Science Council’s 2017 endorsement.
- 2nd edition (launched 29 March 2021): a revised edition that improved the document’s format and readability and revised the section covering breach-handling procedures.
Both editions are published by ASM and available through ASM’s official portal; Malaysian universities’ research management centres also commonly host a copy for their own researchers.
How it draws on international standards
The MCRCR was deliberately written to align with established international research-integrity instruments rather than start from a blank slate. It explicitly draws guidance from other well-established codes, including the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010) — itself the outcome of the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity and one of the most widely referenced cross-national integrity statements. This positions the MCRCR as part of the broader post-2010 wave of national codes that took the Singapore Statement’s principles (honesty, accountability, professional courtesy and fairness, good stewardship) and localized them to a specific legal and institutional context.
How it’s applied at Malaysian research institutions
In practice, application of the MCRCR happens at the institutional level:
- Universities and research institutes are expected to adopt the code’s principles into their own internal research-integrity policies, supervision practices, and researcher training, rather than treating the MCRCR as a standalone external document.
- Awareness and education is coordinated nationally through the NCRI, which has run initiatives aimed at researchers, institutions, and the public to build familiarity with the code’s content and expectations.
- Breach/misconduct handling is addressed in the code itself (the section revised in the 2nd edition), but — consistent with the decentralized model described above — actual investigation of a specific allegation is an institutional responsibility, run through each university’s or research institute’s own internal procedures rather than a single national investigative office.
- Research funders and ethics committees operate alongside the MCRCR: Malaysia’s research-ethics infrastructure for human-subjects research (institutional research ethics committees) and funding bodies such as those administering the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) and other MOHE-administered grant schemes operate under their own separate compliance requirements, which the MCRCR complements rather than replaces.
Researchers and research administrators working with Malaysian institutions — including on collaborative or funded projects that touch clinical research, for which Malaysia’s National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) clinical-trial approval pathway is the relevant regulatory route — should expect the MCRCR to be the reference point for what "responsible conduct in research" means in the Malaysian context, even though enforcement mechanics run through the institution rather than a single national office.
Frequently asked questions
Is the MCRCR legally binding?
The MCRCR functions as a national code of expected conduct rather than a standalone statute. Its authority comes from endorsement by the National Science Council and adoption by research institutions into their own internal policies, rather than from a dedicated research-integrity law. Institutions apply it through their own governance instruments (employment terms, research policies, funding conditions), which is where any binding effect in a specific case would actually come from.
Who investigates research misconduct in Malaysia?
There is no single centralized national office (comparable to, for example, the US Office of Research Integrity) that investigates every allegation. Under the MCRCR’s decentralized model, individual research institutions are responsible for handling allegations involving their own researchers, guided by the breach-procedure provisions in the code (revised in the 2nd edition) and their own internal policies.
How does the MCRCR relate to the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity?
The MCRCR explicitly draws guidance from the Singapore Statement and other established international codes, adapting their principles to Malaysia’s legal and cultural context. It is a national implementation in the same broader tradition rather than a direct copy.
Which body publishes and maintains the MCRCR?
The Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM) publishes and maintains the code, following its 2017 endorsement by Malaysia’s National Science Council. The National Committee on Research Integrity (NCRI), established by the National Science Council, is responsible for promoting awareness of the code.
What changed between the 1st and 2nd editions of the MCRCR?
The 2nd edition, launched 29 March 2021, improved the document’s overall format and readability and revised the section addressing breach-handling procedures, compared with the original 2017 edition.
This guide reflects the publicly available description of the MCRCR from the Academy of Sciences Malaysia and related institutional sources as of 2026. Specific procedural detail (e.g. exact breach-investigation timelines or committee composition at a given institution) should be confirmed against the current edition of the code and the relevant institution’s own policy, since implementation specifics can vary by institution and may be updated between code editions.
