Abstract
Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.
Highlights
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was founded in 1997 to address breaches of research and publication ethics
We thought it essential to attempt to define best practice in the ethics of scientific publishing. These guidelines should be useful for authors, editors, editorial board members, readers, owners of journals, and publishers
The guidelines were developed from a preliminary version drafted by individual members of the committee, which was submitted to extensive consultation
Summary
Good research should be well justified, well planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved.To conduct research to a lower standard may constitute misconduct. (3) Protocols must be carefully agreed by all contributors and collaborators, including, if appropriate, the participants. (7) Formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriately constituted research ethics committee is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and anonymised human tissues. (8) Use of human tissues in research should conform to the highest ethical standards, such as those recommended by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (9) Fully informed consent should always be sought It may not always be possible, and in such circumstances, an appropriately constituted research ethics committee should decide if this is ethically acceptable. (10) When participants are unable to give fully informed consent, research should follow international guidelines, such as those of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (12) Formal supervision, usually the responsibility of the principal investigator, should be provided for all research projects: this must include quality control, and the frequent review and long term retention (may be up to 15 years) of all records and primary outputs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
