ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.
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 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological Quality of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Treatment Evidence-Based Guidelines: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE REX Tools.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Impacts of Responsible Conduct of Research Education on the Career and Practice of Graduating Fellows.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- A multicenter cross-sectional study on perceptions and peer-reported prevalence of research misconduct among Chinese medical postgraduates.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bridging the Governance Gap: A Case for an Indigenous Jurisprudential Framework for Genomic and Biobanking Research in Nigeria.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- A low-cost approach to high quality responsible conduct of research education.International journal of ethics education · 2026Article
- Knowledge and practices about research integrity among Peruvian university students.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The importance of science communication and public engagement to professional associations.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- Literature as a Lens: Investigating Institutional Failures in Research Integrity through Fiction and Fact.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- An autoethnographic critique of a past report of inpatient psychiatric treatment for gender diverse children.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Why Universities Should Make Misconduct Reports Public.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025Article
- Advice to early career nutritionists on working in and with the food industry.Nutrition bulletin · 2025Article
- Policies on artificial intelligence chatbots among academic publishers: a cross-sectional audit.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.PloS one · 2025Article
- Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for successfully carrying out funded research projects.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition: Categorical Thinking and the Stigma of Commercial Collaboration.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Why Do I Choose an Animal Model or an Alternative Method in Basic and Preclinical Biomedical Research? A Spectrum of Ethically Relevant Reasons and Their Evaluation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Ethical Impact Assessment of Sharing Nanosafety Data.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Challenges in accessing patient-centered care and patient empowerment in selected Ghanaian hospitals.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.