ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Author: Saskia Hoving

Editor-in-Chief

Safeguarding research integrity is a shared responsibility across institutions, publishers, and funders, but the landscape of research integrity is complex and approaches vary. As integrity issues become more challenging, institutions are asked not only to enforce standards, but to foster a culture that supports responsible research in practice. In a special blog series, we draw on interviews with institutional research integrity experts from various regions to explore how integrity is experienced in practice, and what it takes to sustain it across a multi-stakeholder research landscape.

This first blog explores the current landscape through contributions from our contributing experts, highlighting the challenges they face and the role of communication and trust in navigating them.

Research institutions are at the centre of the integrity landscape, responsible for upholding research integrity through prevention, guidance, and, when needed, training. But they do so within a complex, interdependent system that also includes publishers, funders, and other stakeholders, making effective coordination, communication, and trust essential.

We spoke with institutional integrity experts from various regions to learn about their work: and to gain insight into how institutions can best navigate the integrity landscape:

• Jonas Ã…kerman, Research Integrity and Ethics Coordinator, Ethics Support Function at Stockholm University, Sweden
• Daniel Barr, Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University, Australia
• Rod Bates, Former Research Integrity Officer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore
• Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and Research Integrity Officer at Northwestern University, United States and founding member

In this blog, the first of a three-part series, we explore the current integrity landscape and how collaboration and communication help institutions navigate it. These insights set the foundation for the next pieces in our series, which look more deeply at integrity culture, incentives that undermine integrity, and the meaningful role of leadership in making responsible research the norm.

“Research integrity is extremely important, and the challenges are only going to get greater.� - Rod Bates, Former Research Integrity Officer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore

Challenges of the current integrity landscape

Research integrity challenges are not new, but the way they surface, escalate, and get resolved has changed markedly in recent years. Cases are becoming more complex, increasingly cross institutions and national boundaries, and are shaped by rapidly evolving technologies, incentives, and expectations.

From our conversations with institutional integrity experts, we map the central issues they face in today’s research integrity landscape: persistent integrity challenges, inconsistent responses across the ecosystem, and fast-evolving emerging challenges.

Persistent challenges of research integrity: Authorship and data

Authorship disputes seem to be among the most frequently encountered integrity concerns that continuously surface across institutions and regions. “Authorship is a difficult river to navigate wherever you are, whatever stage you’re at,� Daniel Barr explains. Norms vary widely between disciplines, institutions, and countries, and expectations often remain unwritten or assumed rather than explicitly agreed.

Research data management is likewise a persistent foundational challenge. Data, according to Barr, “is the gold of research,� but the work needed to manage, share, and preserve data is unevenly supported. And like authorship challenges, data practices vary not only across disciplines and between institutions, but also within them, shaped by differences in research groups, supervisory relationships, and organisational structures.

Navigating research integrity through widespread inconsistency

There is significant variation in how research integrity concerns are handled across the research ecosystem. Having worked with publishers, institutions, and funders on integrity concerns, Rod Bates says responses are “very mixed.�

Variance in the use of integrity-related terminology further complicates the efforts between multiple actors. Ã…kerman notes that terms can carry very different meanings across contexts, and decisions may read differently by international publishers or funders without contextualisation.

A fragmented system, with multiple funders and a patchwork of rules and requirements, makes is harder to manage research integrity concerns. Institutions working with multiple funding agencies navigate through different reporting thresholds, definitions, and training requirements, as Lauran Qualkenbush mentions.

Emerging risks unfold quickly

Artificial intelligence is evolving fast, and has been reshaping research integrity, from writing and authorship to detection and oversight.

Several interviewees describe how the rapid uptake of generative AI has outpaced both institutional policy frameworks and technical detection tools. Institutions, according to Lauran Qualkenbush, are “constantly playing catch up from a policy, compliance, and education perspective.� Establishing regulations is challenging when new practices and tools are evolving faster than norms, governance, and support mechanisms can adapt.

“There are many stakeholders to bridge across the system, and we have a common goal: We all care about the integrity of the scientific record. But we have to work together.� - Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and Research Integrity Officer at Northwestern University, United States and founding member

Communication and trust: Key to handling research integrity effectively

When rules, terminology, and expectations differ across institutions, funders, and publishers, even well-intended actions can be misunderstood or delayed. The research integrity experts return to the same foundation for effective integrity work: clear communication, reliable points of contact, and relationships built on trust.

Direct communication speeds up alignment

Communication is repeatedly considered by research integrity experts as the most decisive factor in the success of collaboration. Qualkenbush is particularly explicit: “It’s all about communication.� She explains how verbal communication supports her interactions with publishers and enables progress where written, reserved communications might not suffice.

Direct and responsive communication enables contextualisation and helps to reduce uncertainty and misinterpretation, especially in sensitive cases where written communication can feel too committing and discourage open discussion.

Clear contact points make collaboration possible

Communication certainly also depends on knowing who to talk to. Åkerman stressed that “one thing that’s crucial is to have a clear contact point.� Without named roles or identifiable functions, even well-intentioned institutions can struggle to engage effectively. This engagement is essential for contextualising terms and decisions and managing the complexity of the research integrity landscape.

Trust accelerates resolution

With contacts to communicate with, relationships and trust develop and become the keys to effective collaboration. Barr observes that “when you’re in a trusted working relationship, things happen smoothly and quickly… it feels collegial and supportive.�

When trust is established, rapid and productive decision making is possible. It is an operational asset that shapes timelines, reduces defensiveness, and enables actors across the system to act with confidence.

Institutional efforts to sustain research integrity: Turning policies into practice

Our conversations with Ã…kerman, Barr, Bates, and Qualkenbush offered insights into research integrity as experienced by institutional practitioners: complex, uneven, and under pressure. This first blog focused on mapping that landscape and exploring the opportunities for improvement through better alignment and coordination across the system.

In the next blogs, we explore what institutions can do internally to cultivate a research integrity culture that endures. We discuss the gaps between training and practice, the role of incentives in shaping behaviour, and the importance of visible leadership commitment and embedded support networks. Stay tuned.

Related content

• Emerging librarian roles in supporting ethical and rigorous scholarship
• Research integrity in the age of open access and AI: The view from France
• How libraries enhance research ethics for researchers
• Navigating research integrity in the age of AI

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!