ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- The development of QERM scoring system for comprehensive assessment of the Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine - Part 1.Journal of postgraduate medicinePooled it
- Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Review
- Scientific integrity from a meta-ethical perspective: more contextualization and research ethics committees? A preliminary meta-ethics study.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Characteristics of retracted biomedical research papers from Latin American institutions.Revista de saude publica · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Good practice in medicine and biology: scientific integrity needs global bioethics.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Integrating Integrity: The Organizational Translation of Policies on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.Life sciences, society and policy · 2020Article
- Empowerment and Conceptual Clarity in Research Integrity : Comment to David Shaw, The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema, Sci Eng Ethics (2019) 25: 1085-1093.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- An Overview of Scientific Reproducibility: Consideration of Relevant Issues for Behavior Science/Analysis.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers often refer to "research integrity", "scientific integrity", "research misconduct", "scientific misconduct" and "research ethics". However, they may use some of these terms interchangeably despite conceptual distinctions. The aim of this paper is to clarify what is signified by several key terms related to research integrity, and to suggest clearer conceptual delineation between them. To accomplish this task, it provides a conceptual analysis based upon definitions and general usage of these phrases and categorization of integrity-breaching behaviours in literature and guidelines, including clarification of the different domains and agents involved. In the first part of the analysis, following some initial clarifications, I explore the distinction between internal and external rules of integrity. In the second part, I explore the distinction between integrity and lack of misconduct, before suggesting a recategorisation of different types of integrity breach. I conclude that greater clarity is needed in the debate on research integrity. Distinguishing between scientific and research integrity, reassessing the relative gravity of different misbehaviours in light of this distinction, and recognising all intentional breaches of integrity as misconduct may help to improve guidelines and education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29594670What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.