Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 51–75 of 91 results
A conflict of interest is a reason for scrutiny, not an automatic verdict against the research. Trustworthiness depends on how the conflict relates to the study, how it was managed, and how well the research itself withstands critical evaluation.
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 →Funders inevitably influence research agendas because they decide what they are willing to support. The more difficult question is when legitimate priority-setting becomes sponsor control that compromises the scientific value or independence of the research.
Read Guide →Choosing the right reporting authority matters when research misconduct is suspected. Learn when to contact an institution, research integrity officer, journal, funder, or regulator, and how to report concerns responsibly when the usual reporting channel is unavailable or compromised.
Read Guide →A research misconduct investigation does not automatically require every related project to stop. Understand when research may continue, when restrictions or suspension may be necessary, and how institutions should protect participants, preserve evidence, and maintain procedural fairness while allegations remain unresolved.
Read Guide →An institution's failure to investigate a serious research-integrity concern may raise questions about procedural compliance, jurisdiction, or institutional accountability. Learn how to distinguish legitimate preliminary dismissal from improper inaction, document the institutional response, and identify appropriate escalation routes without assuming that every refusal constitutes a cover-up.
Read Guide →Researchers may discover that a sponsor or government intends to use their findings for purposes they consider harmful, discriminatory, or scientifically unjustified. Understand how to distinguish policy disagreement from evidence misuse, evaluate contractual obligations, preserve research independence, and determine when clarification, institutional intervention, withdrawal, or public communication may be appropriate.
Read Guide →Institutional approval can be decisive when AI tools handle protected, confidential, or institutionally governed information. But approval establishes permission under particular conditions, not scientific validity for every research task.
Read Guide →Research funders can set their own requirements for AI use in funding applications, assessment, funded projects, and reporting. These rules may be stricter than your university’s general AI policy.
Read Guide →Do not assume that a confidential research proposal can be uploaded to an AI tool simply because you wrote it. Proposal content may be governed by confidentiality, institutional, funder, collaborator, intellectual-property, and data-handling requirements.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers prepare manuscripts for journal submission by organizing requirements, checking documents, and improving presentation. Learn which tasks AI can assist with and what authors must independently verify before submitting.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help draft a conflict-of-interest statement, but it cannot determine whether authors have interests requiring disclosure. Learn how to identify, verify, and report relevant relationships accurately.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers draft, organize, and revise grant applications, but it cannot establish a project's scientific merit or invent supporting evidence. Learn which tasks AI can assist with, where the risks arise, and how to retain responsibility for the proposal.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers interpret grant eligibility requirements, but it cannot reliably establish eligibility without verified applicant information and current funder rules. Learn how to identify disqualifying conditions, assess uncertain criteria, and confirm whether you can apply.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers refine specific aims, clarify hypotheses, and align objectives with a proposed methodology. However, scientifically meaningful aims require independent research judgment, verified evidence, and a feasible study design.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers explain and organize grant budget expenses, but it cannot verify actual costs or determine whether every expense is allowable. Learn how to prepare an evidence-based budget justification that aligns with the research plan and funder requirements.
Read Guide →Uploading a confidential research grant proposal to an AI tool may expose unpublished ideas, sensitive data, or restricted information. Learn when uploading may be permissible, what protections to verify, and how to use AI without unnecessarily disclosing confidential research.
Read Guide →Research funders can restrict generative AI in grant applications and peer review, but the rules may differ considerably between applicants and reviewers. Learn how NIH and NSF policies illustrate these differences and what researchers should verify before using AI.
Read Guide →AI disclosure requirements vary among research funders, and not every use of generative AI requires the same treatment. Learn when disclosure may be mandatory, what information to report, and why transparency does not automatically make prohibited AI use acceptable.
Read Guide →Generative AI can support grant preparation, but the applicant must retain genuine intellectual ownership of the proposed research. Learn how to distinguish editorial assistance from substantive AI development and protect the originality of a grant application.
Read Guide →Generative AI could assist grant reviewers with summarization and preliminary analysis, but some major research funders prohibit or restrict its use. Learn why confidentiality, scientific judgment, and official reviewer policies determine whether AI assistance is permissible.
Read Guide →Grant reviewers generally cannot upload confidential research proposals to AI tools without authorization from the funding organization. Learn why even partial uploads can breach confidentiality, how NIH and NSF policies differ, and what reviewers should do instead.
Read Guide →Generative AI can introduce confidentiality risks when reviewers process unpublished grant applications through unauthorized systems. Learn how disclosure, retention, third-party processing, and information leakage affect research grant review and what safeguards are necessary.
Read Guide →Generative AI can summarize lengthy grant applications, but reviewers must first establish whether the funder permits its use. Learn how AI summaries can omit consequential details, distort scientific arguments, and affect reviewer judgment.
Read Guide →AI-assisted grant scoring can reproduce or introduce biases that affect which research proposals receive favorable evaluations. Understand where these biases arise, how they can influence funding decisions, and what safeguards researchers and funders should consider.
Read Guide →