The stake(holder)s
Who’s involved?
Many people, besides the person who commits the violations of research integrity, are involved and possibly affected when research misconduct occurs. By extension, many of those involved have an (in)direct responsibility to ensure the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research are respected. The research environment can be considered as an ‘ecosystem’ in which all components and players must act in synergy and work together to contribute to the trustworthiness of science.
Doing research is a dynamic and collaborative process. This means that your research environment (and thus ‘ecosystem’) consists of a lot more people than those directly involved or present in your local research unit. It is advisable to treat these people as direct colleagues as well, even if they are not always physically nearby and take responsibility for how collaborative work is carried out.
General public
The public rightly holds researchers to high standards. After all, researchers are the primary source of objective knowledge, providing reliable guidance for all kinds of decisions. However, the processes that lead to producing robust scientific knowledge and how the research community operates are not always transparent for non-scientists, which may lead to the misinterpretation of the results. Moreover, there is a strong emphasis on tangible results.
Researchers in general
Many aspects can have an impact on the occurrence of violations of research integrity. Research has shown a number of aspects are particularly likely to in/decrease the risk of such violations. Research culture evolves slowly, partly because of its international character and the diverse interests within the system. Moreover, the system largely relies on peer- and self-regulation.
Journals - Funder
Journals and funders should have clear internal policies in place to make sure researchers can make and submit their research (results) in a way that fosters research integrity. Different aspects of the evaluation process, whether it’s for publication or to receive funding, may adversely affect integrity (such as a need for results that are quick, flashing, strong and outspoken, … ). Both actors must be aware of their decisive role in establishing the conditions that give researchers the time and space to conduct their research with integrity.
Policy makers
When intervening, it is important that governments influence the framework of scientific work in such a way that it facilitates rather than hinders the integrity of research results.
What’s at stake?
Reasons to commit fraud are numerous and in most cases the immediate goal is to gain something; meeting a deadline, a publication, a grant, a nice CV, etc. However, if we look at an isolated action (the decision to cheat) from a broader perspective, it is clear there is a lot more to lose, for various actors in the ecosystem and for science as a whole.
We invite you to experience the scope of the ecosystem in science and the implications for the whole when one person crosses the line. Take a look at the introduction to the simulation game The Lab (from the American Office for Research Integrity – 3 min 20 sec). The example is from the health sector, which immediately appeals to the imagination. But the relevance equally applies to other disciplines. Just think of the possible impact on the relatives of victims when a historical researcher draws incorrect conclusions from the war past or falsified carbon dating of archaeological remains where the remains were labelled as being older than they actually were.
We identified following stakeholders and stakes from The Lab:
- The career of the individual researcher committing the violations
- The careers and reputations of colleagues, PI/supervisor, other relevant co-workers
- The reputation of your research field or discipline
- The reputation of the university/science in general
- The reputation of journals who published the articles
- Public health
- Wellbeing of research participants
- Public trust in science/scientists
- Progress of knowledge
- …
Did you recognize others?
Researcher: “I only read news articles about integrity and misconduct in life sciences but I don’t work in that discipline so why is this relevant for me?”
Violations of research integrity occur in all areas of science. Recent research in The Netherlands suggests respondents from the life and medical sciences have the highest prevalence of any frequent questionable research practices compared to the other disciplinary fields (55.3% – other fields between 42.1 & 50.2%). The life and medical sciences respondents report the highest prevalence estimate for any fabrication/falsification (10.4% – other fields between 5.7 & 8.4%). In this study, less than 1% of arts and humanities scholars reported fabrication (other fields between 2.5 & 5.5%). However, these scholars have the highest prevalence estimate for falsification (6.1% – other fields between 2 & 5.3%). (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022). Other research showed that research misconduct and questionable research practices in social sciences are more prevalent than in biomedical and interdisciplinary sciences (Xie et al, 2021). To conclude, at this point it seems misconduct and unacceptable practices are not limited to any specific discipline, but it can manifest differently in different disciplines.
What may also be different, is our perception of the prevalence of misconduct and unacceptable behaviour. The fact that the much-discussed cases of research fraud very often seem to originate from the life sciences may be influenced by various other factors. On the one hand, there are high(er) social expectations regarding research results; think, for example, of the cure or treatment of diseases. This type of high-profile research often also has major financial benefits (Andorno, 2021) making the impact of (and attention for) misconduct bigger. In addition Ioannidis et al (2025) point at the increased scrutiny and better detection of misconduct and major errors in fields that have consequences for health; differences in the intensity and types of post-publication review practices; and the fact that quantifiable data and images in the life sciences are easier to assess for errors and fraud than many constructs in social sciences.
To conclude, there are no specific problematic disciplines, they all have their own different issues. This means all researchers have a responsibility to be aware of and uphold research integrity.
