Practices that undermine research integrity

Research integrity refers to the commitment to conduct, report, and review research honestly, transparently, and responsibly. It is what leads readers to trust that the findings are reliable and that the conclusions are supported by evidence. When research integrity is weakened, the impact extends far beyond a single published manuscript. Confidence in journals, institutions, and even entire fields can be affected. Unethical research and/or publication practices also introduce mistrust among researchers, editors, and reviewers. However, not all threats to research integrity arise from deliberate wrongdoing. Some could be the result of everyday decisions made under time constraints, publication pressure, or lack of awareness about best and ethcial practices. Understanding what these behaviors are and why they occur is a critical first step toward preventing them.

1. Selective reporting of data and results

Selective reporting occurs when researchers highlight only favorable outcomes while downplaying or omitting results that do not support a preferred narrative. This might involve excluding negative findings, redefining outcomes after data analysis, or presenting exploratory results as confirmatory. This behavior often arises from pressure to publish “positive” or statistically significant results. Authors may worry that journals or reviewers will view null findings as uninteresting or flawed. From a peer reviewer’s perspective, however, selective reporting raises immediate concerns about transparency and reliability.

In the absence of complete information, reviewers find it difficult to assess whether the conclusions are justified.

2. Poor data management and inadequate documentation

Incomplete records, missing raw data, or unclear methodological descriptions can seriously undermine research credibility. Even when data are collected ethically, poor documentation makes it impossible for other researchers to reproduce the methods and for reviewers or readers to understand the work properly. Poor data management often results from a lack of training, inconsistent workflows, or assumptions that certain details are “understood” within a field. In peer review, vague methods sections or unavailable datasets often trigger requests for clarification or skepticism about the robustness of the study. What may feel like an administrative oversight to an author can appear as a red flag to an editor or reviewer.

3. Misuse of authorship

Authorship is about both credit and responsibility. Problems arise when individuals are listed as authors despite limited contribution, or when significant contributors are excluded. Practices such as gift authorship, honorary authorship, and ghost authorship distort the scholarly record. Such practices often emerge from hierarchical pressures, institutional politics, or misunderstandings about authorship criteria. Reviewers and editors may not see these dynamics directly, but inconsistencies in author contributions or accountability can surface during revisions or post-publication discussions. Over time, misuse of authorship erodes trust in the attribution of expertise and responsibility.

4. Plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse

Plagiarism includes presenting others’ ideas, data, or words without proper attribution. It also includes self-plagiarism, where authors reuse substantial portions of their own previously published text without disclosure. While some cases are intentional, others result from uncertainty about citation norms or assumptions that reusing one’s own work is harmless. In peer review, text overlap, whether detected by software or by an attentive reviewer, can quickly overshadow the scientific contribution of a manuscript. Even when the research itself is sound, unclear attribution raises questions about ethical awareness and scholarly rigor.

5. Peer review manipulation

Behaviors that attempt to influence peer review undermine one of the core safeguards of scholarly publishing. Examples include recommending biased reviewers, providing misleading reviewer contact information, or pressuring editors for favorable outcomes. Such actions often arise from a fear of rejection, delays, or criticism. Peer reviewers rely on the integrity of the process to provide fair, constructive evaluations. When that trust is compromised, the credibility of editorial decisions is called into question, affecting not just one manuscript but the journal as a whole.

Why these issues persist

Across these behaviors, common drivers emerge: intense publication pressure, limited training in research ethics, and uncertainty about expectations. Many researchers do not set out to act unethically. Instead, they navigate complex systems with incomplete guidance. Recognizing these patterns helps shift the conversation from blame to prevention, an essential step toward strengthening research integrity at every stage of the publication process.

Up next, Part 2: Exploring the consequences of unethical research and publication practices and learning how they can be prevented.