Behaviors that undermine research integrity

In this part we will discuss the consequences of unethical practices on researchers, publishers, and on scholarly knowledge.

This is Part 2 of our series on research integrity and publication ethics. In Part 1, we explored common practices that undermine research integrity and why they arise. An important consideration here is that of the ripples caused by unethical behaviors and practices. Integrity issues rarely affect only a single manuscript or decision. They shape how reviewers respond, editors make judgments, institutions assess credibility, and the public perceives research.

Understanding these consequences is important, as it will help recognize that ethical breaches, irrespective of whether they were intentional, carry real costs for everyone involved in the research and publication process.

Consequences for researchers

For individual researchers, integrity issues can have lasting professional consequences. A manuscript flagged for selective reporting, unclear methods, or text reuse often faces deeper scrutiny during peer review. Editors and reviewers may question not only the specific issue at hand but also the overall reliability of the work. This can result in prolonged revision cycles, rejection, or loss of confidence in the author’s future submissions. Over time, repeated integrity concerns can affect a researcher’s reputation within a field. Editors and reviewers remember patterns. Even when the underlying research question is strong, doubts about transparency or ethics can overshadow the contribution itself. For early-career researchers, this can be discouraging, especially when missteps stem from lack of guidance rather than intent. And when the result is a retraction of a published manuscript, the impact is more long lasting, and curse correction is extremely difficult.

Consequences for institutions

Institutions carry collective responsibility for the research produced by researchers affiliated with them. When integrity issues surface, whether through retractions, disputes, or public criticism, they can damage institutional credibility. This may affect future funding, collaborations, and the ability to attract students or researchers. From an internal perspective, institutions are often drawn into investigations, authorship disputes, or appeals related to problematic manuscripts. These processes consume time and resources and can strain relationships among researchers, departments, and leadership. Strong research integrity practices are not just ethical safeguards; they are essential for institutional stability and trust.

Consequences for journals and editors

Journals rely on peer review to maintain quality and credibility. When manuscripts contain ethics or integrity issues, editors must spend additional time managing reviewer concerns, requesting clarifications, or mediating disagreements. This slows down editorial workflows and places extra burden on reviewers who volunteer their expertise. More critically, if integrity lapses make it through to publication, journals face the risk of a tarnished reputation. Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions can undermine readers’ confidence in editorial standards. Even when issues are handled transparently, repeated problems signal weaknesses in the submission or review process, affecting how the journal is perceived within the scholarly community.

Consequences for public trust in research

Beyond academia, research integrity directly affects public trust. Policymakers, practitioners, and the public rely on published findings to make decisions that influence health, technology, and society. When integrity is compromised, confidence in research outcomes is eroded. Cases of misconduct often lead to generalized skepticism, even toward carefully conducted studies. This makes the work of ethical researchers harder and increases scrutiny across the board. In this sense, integrity lapses do not remain isolated, they shape how science itself is viewed and valued. They also introduce an element of mistrust among researchers, publishers, and readers.

How these consequences show up in peer review interactions

Reviewers may become more cautious, more detailed, or more skeptical when they spot integrity issues in a manuscript. Authors, in turn, may feel frustrated or misunderstood, especially if they did not intend to mislead. Recognizing this dynamic is important. What feels like excessive scrutiny to an author could just be a reviewer responding to signals of risk. Clear reporting, transparent data handling, and ethical authorship practices help shift peer review conversations from suspicion to collaboration.

Awareness and accountability

The consequences of undermining research integrity are real, but they are not inevitable. Awareness, training, and open communication can prevent issues before a manuscript ever reaches review. Integrity is not a fixed trait; it is a practice that develops through experience, reflection, and feedback. By understanding how individual actions affect the wider research ecosystem, researchers, institutions, and journals can work toward a publication culture built on trust, clarity, and shared responsibility.

In Part 3 of this series, we will move from impact to action, focusing on practical ways researchers can build integrity into their workflows, improve documentation and communication, and help manuscripts move through peer review with greater confidence and transparency.