In the previous parts of this series, we looked at practices that undermine research integrity and the consequences they create for researchers, journals, and public trust. In this part, we will focus on prevention. Integrity is not a process check that can be applied at the final stage of submission. Integrity is an essential part of pre-requisite for each step of research, writing, peer review, and publication. It shapes how a manuscript is prepared reviewed, interpreted, and trusted. As an author, it is important for you to write and publish ethically.

Here are a few practical guidelines to help you address integrity issues before a manuscript ever reaches peer review.

• Using established ethics guidance as a foundation
  Well-established ethics frameworks exist to support researchers at every stage of the research and publication process. Organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR)  Network provide clear guidance on aspects such as authorship, reporting standards, conflicts of interest, and responsible conduct. These resources are not abstract policy documents. Reviewers and often rely on them when assessing manuscripts or raising concerns.

  Aligning a manuscript with recognized guidelines will help you  anticipate reviewer expectations. Clear authorship statements, transparent disclosures, and adherence to reporting checklists reduce ambiguity and signal professionalism. When reviewers see that a manuscript follows established standards, the focus shifts from questioning ethics to evaluating scientific contribution.

• Reducing integrity risks early
  Many integrity issues emerge not from intent but due avoidable misses in planning and communication. Simple, consistent practices can make a meaningful difference.

  Maintaining thorough documentation throughout a study enables smooth manuscript preparation. When methods, decisions, and data handling are clearly recorded, you can describe their work confidently and respond to reviewer questions without uncertainty. Reviewers are also more likely to trust findings when explanations are specific and consistent across different sections of the manuscript.

  Clarifying your role and contribution before writing reduces disputes later and helps ensure that credit and responsibility are aligned. Editors and reviewers tend to notice when accountability within a manuscript feels unclear.

  Transparency in reporting is equally important. Describing limitations, unexpected findings, and deviations from original plans strengthens credibility rather than weakening it. Reviewers tend to respond more constructively when you acknowledge research complexity and/or shortcomings instead of presenting overly polished narratives.

• Preparing manuscripts with peer review in mind
  Thinking like a peer reviewer during manuscript preparation is one of the most effective preventive strategies. Reviewers ask whether claims are supported, methods are reproducible, and interpretations are proportional to the evidence. Anticipating these questions can help you address such aspects directly in the manuscript.

  Clear structure, consistent terminology, and precise explanations reduce friction during review. When reviewers do not need to infer or guess, their feedback becomes more focused on improvement rather than seeking clarification. This often leads to more productive revision cycles and fewer misunderstandings.

• Strengthening integrity through informed peer review
  Understanding how manuscripts are read, evaluated, and discussed during peer review will also help you develop strong research integrity practices. Exposure to reviewer perspectives will help you recognize common integrity concerns early and respond to them more effectively during writing and revision.

  Platforms that support ethical peer review and structured reviewer feedback contribute to this learning process by making expectations more visible and consistent. When researchers engage with these ecosystems, they gain a clearer sense of how transparency, documentation, and communication influence review outcomes. Over time, this shared understanding strengthens trust across the research and publication landscape, reinforcing integrity as a collective and continually evolving practice rather than a one-time requirement.

Research integrity as a consistent practice

Research integrity is not a skill but rather a consistent process of practice and learning that can be developed through experience, feedback, and reflection. Even experienced researchers refine their practices over time as standards evolve and expectations change. What matters most is a willingness to learn, to correct course when needed, and to treat reviewer feedback as part of that learning process.

When transparency and accountability are embedded into everyday workflows, integrity becomes less about compliance and more about quality. Manuscripts prepared with care tend to move through peer review more smoothly because trust has already been established.

Up next in Part 4 of this series, we will explore how COPE’s ethical guidelines for reviewers encourage responsible reviewing practices that support integrity, improve author–reviewer interactions, and strengthen trust in the publication process.