Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 301–325 of 481 results
Publishing substantially the same work twice is not always unethical. The crucial distinction is whether republication is transparent, justified, authorized, and presented as secondary publication rather than falsely appearing to be new research.
Read Guide →Publishing the same findings in another language can be legitimate when handled as transparent secondary publication. Translation alone does not turn previously published research into a new study.
Read Guide →Salami slicing occurs when one coherent body of research is fragmented into multiple minimally distinct papers rather than reported together. Multiple papers from one project are not inherently problematic; the issue is whether each paper adds enough independent scholarly value.
Read Guide →A conference paper, report, or preprint may sometimes be developed into a journal article, but these forms of prior dissemination are not treated identically. What matters is how complete the earlier work was, where it appeared, what rights apply, and what the target journal permits.
Read Guide →Not every analysis you run must appear in the main paper, but statistical nonsignificance is not a sound reason for omission. The key question is whether the analysis is necessary to understand or evaluate the study's claims.
Read Guide →A literature review can misrepresent the evidence without containing a single fabricated citation. Selectively citing supportive studies while ignoring relevant contradictory evidence can create a distorted view of a research question.
Read Guide →A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean you have done anything wrong. The key question is whether an outside interest or relationship could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, your research responsibilities and therefore needs to be disclosed.
Read Guide →Financial conflicts involve monetary or economic interests, while nonfinancial conflicts can arise from professional, personal, academic, or intellectual interests. Both may matter when they intersect with a researcher’s responsibilities.
Read Guide →A conflict of interest creates circumstances in which another interest could influence research judgment. Bias is a systematic influence or distortion in judgment or research processes, and it can occur with or without a conflict of interest.
Read Guide →Wanting publications, promotion, tenure, grants, or professional recognition does not automatically create a conflict of interest. Career interests become more concerning when a specific professional stake competes with a research responsibility or impartial decision.
Read Guide →A professional relationship or rivalry can create a conflict when it gives you a meaningful stake in another person's success, failure, or evaluation. Ordinary acquaintance or working in the same field is not automatically disqualifying.
Read Guide →Industry sponsorship deserves attention because empirical research has found associations between sponsorship and sponsor-favorable results or conclusions in some fields. That evidence supports greater scrutiny, not automatic rejection of every industry-funded study.
Read Guide →A sponsor may sometimes review a manuscript before submission or publication, particularly to identify confidential information, factual issues, or patentable inventions. The crucial boundary is whether the sponsor can comment or can actually control what researchers are permitted to publish.
Read Guide →There is no universal rule that the principal investigator must legally own sponsor-funded research data. What matters scientifically is whether responsible investigators have sufficient access and authority to verify the data, scrutinize analyses, fulfill applicable obligations, and report the research independently.
Read Guide →Some conflicts of interest can be managed through disclosure, independent oversight, role restrictions, or other safeguards. Others are too direct or consequential to manage credibly and require recusal, divestment, severing a relationship, or removal from part of the research.
Read Guide →An undeclared conflict discovered after a study is complete should be reported promptly rather than quietly added to future disclosures. The next step is to determine what should have been disclosed, whether the conflict affected the research, and what correction, retrospective review, management, or mitigation is required.
Read Guide →Research records are more than the data reported in a paper. Learn what evidence researchers should preserve and why trustworthy records are essential for reconstructing, verifying, and defending research.
Read Guide →Research data are often part of the research record, but the two terms are not interchangeable. The distinction matters for preservation, sharing, documentation, and research integrity.
Read Guide →Two researchers may document the same event differently without either account being deliberately misleading. Learn how to investigate conflicting research records, evaluate the available evidence, document reconciliation, and recognize when a discrepancy requires formal review.
Read Guide →Completing or publishing a study does not necessarily end the obligation to preserve its supporting evidence. Understand how responsibility is distributed among researchers, institutions, and record custodians, and what must remain available for future verification.
Read Guide →Academic paper mills are organized services associated with producing or distributing fraudulent scholarly manuscripts and manipulating publication processes. Understand how these operations differ from legitimate research assistance, why their activities threaten the scholarly record, and what researchers should examine before trusting a commercial publication service.
Read Guide →Fraudulent research services may resemble legitimate editing, data collection, statistical consulting, or publication support. Learn how to evaluate providers, recognize suspicious promises, verify research provenance, and distinguish credible evidence of wrongdoing from warning signs that merely justify further investigation.
Read Guide →Discovering that a collaborator used a questionable research service does not automatically establish misconduct, but it may create serious questions about data authenticity, authorship, confidentiality, or publication integrity. Learn how to verify the service's involvement, protect evidence, assess the affected research, and respond proportionately.
Read Guide →Discovering that a paid research service crossed an ethical boundary can create difficult questions about contracts, authorship, data integrity, and publication responsibilities. Learn how to preserve evidence, stop further misrepresentation, assess affected work, and seek appropriate corrective action without assuming that every mistake constitutes formal misconduct.
Read Guide →Researchers may sometimes have legitimate reasons to restrict methodological details that could enable serious harm. However, withholding information can undermine reproducibility and scientific scrutiny. Learn when restrictions may be justified, which alternatives can preserve accountability, and how to distinguish responsible disclosure from inadequate methodological reporting.
Read Guide →