What is research integrity? It is the proactive, whole-of-lifecycle commitment to honesty, rigour, transparency, care and accountability that underpins trustworthy research, from initial study design through data collection, analysis and dissemination. Research misconduct — fabrication, falsification and plagiarism — is a separate, reactive violation of these principles, not a synonym for them.
In one sentence: research integrity is the ethical framework of honesty, rigour, transparency, care and accountability that governs how research is designed, conducted and reported, as distinct from research misconduct, which describes specific, defined breaches of that framework.
- What does research integrity actually mean?
- What are the principles of research integrity?
- How does research integrity differ from research misconduct?
- Which frameworks and bodies define research integrity in practice?
- Why does research integrity matter?
- Common questions about research integrity
- What this means for institutions and early-career researchers
What Does Research Integrity Actually Mean?
Research integrity is a standard of conduct, not a compliance checkbox. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) defines it as “all of the factors that underpin good research practice and promote trust and confidence in the research process,” covering every discipline and every sector where research is carried out. The UK Committee on Research Integrity (UKCORI) puts it more simply: research has integrity “when it’s carried out in a way that is trustworthy, ethical, and responsible.”
Crucially, integrity is proactive — a set of principles researchers, institutions, funders and publishers commit to before and during a project. Misconduct is reactive — something investigated and adjudicated only after a specific, alleged breach. Confusing the two leads institutions to treat integrity purely as a disciplinary matter, when in practice it is a culture and training issue that prevents disciplinary matters from arising at all.
What Are the Principles of Research Integrity?
Two internationally recognised statements define the core principles, and they do not fully overlap — a distinction most explainers skip. The Singapore Statement, agreed at the 2010 World Conference on Research Integrity, sets out four global principles. The UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity, most recently revised in 2025 according to UKRIO, sets out five UK-specific principles.
| Singapore Statement (2010, global) | UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025) |
|---|---|
| Honesty in all aspects of research | Honesty — in ideas, methods, data, authorship and findings |
| Accountability in the conduct of research | Rigour — adherence to disciplinary norms, standards and protocols |
| Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others | Transparency and open communication — including declared conflicts of interest |
| Good stewardship of research on behalf of others | Care and respect — for participants, subjects, the environment and cultural heritage |
| — | Accountability — individually and collectively, including to research participants |
Both frameworks converge on honesty and accountability as non-negotiable. The UK Concordat adds explicit care and respect for participants and the environment, reflecting a decade of sector-specific refinement since the Singapore Statement was first agreed.
How Does Research Integrity Differ From Research Misconduct?
Research integrity and research misconduct sit at opposite ends of the same continuum, but they are not mirror images — one is a standard, the other is a narrow, legally defined category of violation.
| Research integrity | Research misconduct |
|---|---|
| Proactive: a standard applied throughout the research lifecycle | Reactive: investigated only after an allegation is raised |
| Broad: honesty, rigour, transparency, care, accountability | Narrow: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP) |
| Includes honest error, disagreement and self-correction as normal science | Requires intent — knowing, deliberate or reckless conduct |
| Owned by researchers, institutions, funders and publishers collectively | Adjudicated by institutional or national investigation panels |
The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which oversees Public Health Service-funded research under 42 CFR Part 93, defines misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting results. ORI’s own standard explicitly excludes “honest error or differences of opinion” — a distinction UK bodies echo when they describe transparency as permitting “humility in the process” and treating good-faith mistakes as a normal, productive part of research rather than a violation.
Which Frameworks and Bodies Define Research Integrity in Practice?
No single global regulator owns research integrity; instead, a small set of national and disciplinary bodies each cover part of the landscape.
- UKRIO — the UK’s national advisory body for research integrity, providing guidance, a Code of Practice for Research, and independent case advice across all UK research sectors.
- UKCORI — the UK Committee on Research Integrity, which monitors sector-wide trends and reports on the health of the UK’s research integrity landscape.
- COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) — sets guidance for journal editors and publishers on handling suspected misconduct once a manuscript or published article is implicated.
- ORI — the US federal body enforcing 42 CFR Part 93 for Public Health Service-funded research, with formal investigation and debarment powers.
Transparency, one of the five UK Concordat principles, has a concrete operational form: contributor-role disclosure. CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014; the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022. Declaring who did what on a paper, using a recognised taxonomy of research contributions, is one of the few integrity principles that publishers can verify mechanically rather than take on trust.
Why Does Research Integrity Matter?
Research integrity is the precondition for everything downstream of a study: replication, policy use, patient safety and public funding decisions all assume the underlying record is honest.
- Public trust — health policy, technology adoption and regulatory decisions rely on the assumption that published findings reflect what was actually done.
- Reproducibility — other researchers can only replicate and build on work that was conducted and reported rigorously in the first place.
- Institutional and funder risk — universities and funders that cannot demonstrate a working integrity framework face reputational damage and, in the UK, scrutiny tied to Concordat compliance reporting.
- Research administration workload — a strong integrity culture reduces the volume of formal misconduct investigations, which are costly and slow compared with upfront training and clear authorship/data policies.
Common Questions About Research Integrity
What are the five principles of research integrity?
Under the UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity, the five principles are honesty, rigour, transparency and open communication, care and respect, and accountability. They apply across the whole research lifecycle, from design through dissemination, and are echoed with minor variation in the four-principle Singapore Statement.
What is an example of research integrity?
Per UKRIO, examples include honesty in reporting methods and procedures, accurately gathering and presenting data, correctly referencing prior work, properly acknowledging co-authors’ contributions, and making claims that are genuinely justified by the findings obtained.
What are the four principles of the Singapore Statement?
Agreed at the 2010 World Conference on Research Integrity, the four principles are honesty in all aspects of research, accountability in conducting research, professional courtesy and fairness in working with others, and good stewardship of research carried out on behalf of others.
What is the core difference between research integrity and research misconduct?
Research integrity is a proactive standard covering honesty, rigour and transparency across an entire project. Research misconduct is a narrow, reactive category — under ORI’s 42 CFR Part 93, specifically fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism — investigated only after a specific allegation is made.
What This Means for Institutional Leaders and Early-Career Researchers
For institutional leaders, the practical implication is sequencing: integrity training, clear authorship policies and transparent data-management requirements must sit upstream of any misconduct process, not substitute for it. A Concordat signatory institution is expected to report annually on how it embeds these principles, not merely on how many misconduct cases it has closed.
For early-career researchers, the distinction resolves a common source of anxiety. Honest error, a null result, or a documented change of method following peer feedback is normal scientific practice under every framework reviewed here — it is not misconduct, and does not need to be disclosed defensively. What matters is transparent reporting of what was actually done.
The Bottom Line
Research integrity and research misconduct are frequently conflated in casual usage, but the frameworks that govern UK and international research treat them as distinct: one is a standard applied throughout a project, the other a narrow, intent-based violation investigated after the fact. Institutions that build integrity into training, authorship policy and transparent reporting — rather than treating it as a subset of misconduct procedure — see fewer formal investigations and a stronger research culture overall.
