what part of writing a research report gives great emphasis on ethical standards

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

An Intro to the 7 Guidelines for Ethical Research

5-minute read

• 24th April 2023

If you’re conducting research, perhaps for publication in a journal or as part of your studies, you may have heard of the seven guidelines for ethical research . It’s a set of rules and standards to follow to ensure that your research is beneficial and ethical.

If you want your research to be respected as a valuable contribution to your field, it’s a good idea to familiarize yourself with these guidelines and make sure you’re following them. But what are they? In today’s post, we’ll give an overview of each one.

1. Social and Clinical Value

The point of any research is to answer a question or fill a knowledge gap. Conducting research often involves help from participants, whether they’re simply answering questions in a survey or taking part in a clinical trial.

No matter what’s involved, you’re asking those participants to sacrifice or risk something. This could be the inconvenience of giving their time (which could be spent doing something valuable to them), or the potential harm done to them by being part of an experiment.

The social value of clinical research means that the benefit resulting from your research must justify any harm done. Your research is designed to answer a question, and that answer – whatever it may be – should be worth the risk or inconvenience to those involved.

2. Scientific Validity

Scientific validity means that your research must be conducted in a way that will produce understandable and accurate results. To set your research up for success, ask yourself these questions:

·  Is the question I’m researching answerable?

·  Are the research methods feasible?

·  Is there a clear objective ?

·  Are the materials, practices, and methods reliable and accepted in the field?

·  Do I have the means to sufficiently test the objective?

3. Fair Subject Selection

This ethical guideline includes consideration of the following factors:

·  First, your participants should be chosen based on the goals of the study. Which subjects are most relevant for the study? People shouldn’t be chosen or excluded based on things like gender, race, economic status, or religion unless it’s directly related to your study.

·  Second, the subjects should each experience similar levels of risk and benefit from your study. Your participants should be people that stand to benefit from the research question , and they should all share a relatively equal amount of risk or sacrifice by participating.

4. Favorable Risk–Benefit Ratio

A favorable ratio means that the risks must be outweighed by the benefits. With any study, the level of potential harm it could do and the benefits it could produce will be uncertain at first. But there are some things you can do to establish a favorable risk–benefit ratio .

·  You can minimize the amount of risk and harm as much as possible, such as by taking ample precautions, ensuring confidentiality, and increasing safety for all the factors you can control.

·  You can maximize the different ways your research will help people.

·  You can offer additional incentives to anyone who participates, such as money or free services.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

5. Independent Review

This guideline means that an outside party should review your study before you conduct it. They should have no personal interest in the study, which will allow them to objectively analyze it for potential biases, risks, and feasibility.

Usually, this evaluation will be carried out by the agency you’re hoping to publish with or an institutional review board. They’ll also monitor your research while you’re conducting it.

6. Informed Consent

Of course, your participants need to consent to being part of your study. But this involves more than just agreeing to participate. Informed consent means that they’re given all the details about what will be required of them, what methods you’re using, and the potential risks and benefits.

7. Respect for Potential and Enrolled Subjects

Showing respect for everyone involved in your study means:

·  Respecting their privacy

·  Ensuring confidentiality

·  Giving them the option to change their mind or withdraw at any time

·  Keeping them informed of updates, changes, and results

·  Monitoring their wellbeing throughout the study

·  Following through on any promised incentives

This respect should be shown throughout the participant’s entire interaction with you and your research.

To sum up, the seven guidelines for ethical research are social and clinical value, scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk–benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent, and respect for potential and enrolled subjects.

Following those guidelines is crucial, as they ensure your research will be accepted, effective, and ethical. Once you get your research paper written, be sure to send it our way! Our editors will check it for spelling, grammar, consistency, referencing, and more. Try it out for free today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are ethical guidelines important in research?

It’s crucial to follow ethical guidelines while conducting research because they protect participants’ rights and wellbeing and the integrity of the research.

What is the key to ethical research?

The benefits produced by research must outweigh any potential risk or harm.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

Free email newsletter template.

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Responsible Thesis-Writing Process

• Information searching
• Research data management
• Interview and Survey Data

Scientific ethics and research ethics

Research misconduct.

• Research notification
• Research permission
• Business collaboration
• Accessibility
• Publishing thesis
• Save in Osuva
• More useful information

Scientific ethics is defined as commitment to the ideals of science: integrity, openness and critical inquiry. Every member of the scientific community, from the student beginning their Bachelor’s thesis to the world famous academic, follows the same rules and guidelines of ethical scientific practice.

The ethics of science is not new, and it is not based on vague, obscure principles. The demands of scientific ethics are these common values: truth, credibility and integrity. As in human society, so in the ethics of science, it is forbidden to steal, lie or cheat.

Ethical ideals have very little meaning unless they are cherished and promoted. Their implementation must be safeguarded, and any infraction must be investigated. In Finland, the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK) has drawn up a guide for research ethics called Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland (2012). This guide was created in collaboration with the scientific community, including feedback and comments from several universities.

Research ethics is not primarily about avoiding ethical infractions. Rather, research ethics promotes commitment to procedures and practices that enable a high level of reliability and quality in research.

The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity has divided morally significant violations of the responsible conduct of research into two groups: disregard for the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct. Both violations decrease the reliability of results and may invalidate the research itself. However, violations may vary as regards their degree of severity. The researcher who disregards or is negligent of the principles of responsible research conduct may not have understood that their shortcomings are not only damaging to the quality of their work but are also morally questionable practices. In contrast, research misconduct is an intentional choice, and not accidental or due to negligence.

Violations of research ethics in all disciplines

• Plagiarism, misappropriation of research ideas, - materials, or results
• Falsification i.e. modifying or distorting research results
• Concealing significant results, especially risks
• Appropriation of the research to one or only some researchers when others have made significant contributions
• Unequal treatment of members of a research group, e.g., in dividing tasks or hiring
• Sexual harassment and racism
• Morally questionable research subjects, such as eugenics.

Literature review

• Plagiarism or improper citation of sources
• Disregard of proper citation practices
• Quotations taken out of context, misrepresentation of the source text
• Falsified sources

Research interviews

• Asking leading questions, manipulation or other forms of mistreatment of the interview subjects
• Misleading the interview subjects about the purpose of the interview
• Distorting the interview responses
• Violating the anonymity or confidentiality of the interview subjects
• Using or publishing the interviews, recordings or images without the express permission of the parties involved

Medical and biological research

• Mistreatment of lab animals
• Painful experiments
• Unnecessary experiments

Technological and scientific research

• Negligent or unprotected tests; experiments carried out without simulations or training, which pose a threat to those conducting the experiment or to outsiders. (Unacceptable risk: dangerous to all)
• Experiments which pose a risk to the researcher’s health and safety (e.g., exposure to toxins or radiation, test flights) (High risk: dangerous for researchers or experiment participants).
• Unnecessary creation of dangerous products, substance compounds or devices
• Releasing inadequately tested products, such as pharmaceutical drugs, to the market
• Potentially dangerous or risky applications of research results (e.g., nuclear power, weapons technology)

Useful links

• << Previous: Interview and Survey Data
• Next: Research notification >>
• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 12:41 PM
• URL: https://uva.libguides.com/responsible-thesis

13.6 Spotlight on … Ethical Research

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Participate effectively in collaborative processes involving field research in a variety of disciplines.
• Develop projects using the characteristic processes of various disciplines.
• Analyze and make informed decisions about intellectual property based on the concepts that motivate them.
• Apply citation conventions systematically.

Whenever you do research, especially field research involving human participants, fair and ethical treatment of your subjects is expected. Included in this treatment are respect for privacy and, when required, anonymity. Related to fair and ethical treatment is your respect for the work of others, as demonstrated by attributing credit to sources from which you borrow information. Not doing so is one aspect of plagiarism.

Working with Human Participants and Institutional Review Boards

To comply with federal regulations and ethical principles, universities maintain institutional review boards (IRBs) that monitor how researchers treat their research participants. A range of research involvement exists when working with human subjects; whether your research involves taking blood samples, conducting psychological experiments, or simply distributing surveys, you must be aware of and consult your university’s IRB for policies and guidelines. In most cases, as undergraduates, you will not be working on research that is potentially risky or harmful to human participants. For example, it is unlikely you will be involved in conducting medical or psychological research. However, you may work on a project that requires field research such as interviews or observations. Although participants in a fieldwork project will probably not incur the same amount of risk as participants in clinical experiments, the IRB may have some questions nonetheless:

• Will participation be voluntary?
• Will the selection of research subjects be fair?
• Will confidentiality be preserved?
• Will there be any risks to participants?
• Will the study yield important results for society?

Whenever you conduct fieldwork, whether it is via interviews, observations, or surveys, keep in mind ethical considerations for your participants and the ways you represent them in your work. See Tracing a Broad Issue in the Individual for more information.

Plagiarism is putting one’s name on a paper written by a friend and submitting it as one’s own. Plagiarism is buying or downloading a paper from an Internet site and pretending to have written it. And plagiarism is pasting in a phrase, sentence, paragraph, passage, or portion of anybody else’s work in a paper and not giving that author credit. ln these examples, the intent to plagiarize is deliberate and obvious, something that serious and honorable students would never do.

However, plagiarism also occurs when well-meaning students get careless when taking notes or copying notes into actual drafts. Following are three examples of unintentional plagiarism:

• A student copies a passage word for word from an Internet site and pastes it into a paper but forgets to include quotation marks or author attribution.
• A student summarizes a published author’s idea but omits both author name and source title.
• A student credits an author’s idea in a signal phrase (According to John Smith . . .) but omits quotation marks around the author’s exact phrases.

All of these may be unintentional, but each is an act of plagiarism, easily avoidable by more careful research and writing practice.

What Plagiarism Is Not

While you cannot publish the work of others, you may publish material that is common knowledge —that is, historical, cultural, or geographical information that an educated adult would be expected to know. Nor do you need to attribute material that appears in multiple sources, such as dates of historical events, names and locations of states and cities, general laws of science, and statements of well-known theories.

You do not need to document phrases in widespread use in your culture or well-known information found in textbooks or lectures in the field in which you are writing. For example, in a paper written about Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) for a psychology class, you would not document the term superego , a word Freud frequently used. For more about what plagiarism is and is not, see Spotlight on … Citation .

Avoiding Plagiarism

Ensuring that your voice, ideas, critical thinking, connections, and analysis are the focus of your essay and not allowing borrowed materials to “take over” are critical to avoiding plagiarism. Additionally, keeping an accurate research log will assist you in recording, attributing, and clearly citing borrowed materials. When you think about plagiarism, consider what seems fair and how you might feel if someone were to use your work without giving you credit. Here are a few tips for avoiding plagiarism:

• In your research log, and subsequently in your essay, put quotation marks around language that comes directly from your sources. Use internal citations and appropriate reference pages for academic papers.
• Use internal citations for paraphrases and summaries, and do your best to capture the sentiment of the author you cite, even when using your own words.
• Keep accurate, thorough research notes so that you have the source information you need to work efficiently and cite accurately. For all copied sources, write who said what, where, and when. When quoting directly, do not distort or intentionally modify an author’s meaning.
• Plan your work schedule to allow time for careful reading of your sources and effective use of them.

Another way to avoid plagiarism is to make sure that you have enough time to write and revise your project multiple times. Many students often find that postponing or avoiding the research process forces them to become rushed and to present a product that reflects insufficient attention to attribution.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/13-6-spotlight-on-ethical-research

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg
• v.25(6); Nov-Dec 2020

Ethics in Research and Publication

Pradyumna pan.

Ashish Hospital and Research Centre, Pediatric Surgery Unit, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

Published articles in scientific journals are a key method for knowledge-sharing. Researchers can face the pressures to publish and this can sometimes lead to a breach of ethical values, whether consciously or unconsciously. The prevention of such practices is achieved by the application of strict ethical guidelines applicable to experiments involving human subjects or biological tissues. Editors too are faced with ethical problems, including how best to handle peer-review bias, and find reviewers with experience, probity, and professionalism. This article emphasizes that authors and their sponsoring organizations need to be informed of the importance of upholding the guidelines in research and ethical rules when disclosing scientific work.

I NTRODUCTION

Accurate reporting of results of research depends on the integrity of the authors, their application of and compliance with guidelines relating to the assurance of an ethical approach throughout and also on robust institutional research governance protocols ensuring that study design, conduct, and analysis of research and the publishing process all comply to an ethical framework. There is a growing concern that research misconduct over the past two decades has become more common.[ 1 ] It is challenging to determine whether this apparent increase is a true increase in the number of misconducts committed or detection has increased during this period.[ 2 ]

W HAT IS P UBLICATION E THICS ?

It is important that persons involved in the research must be compliant with the ethical framework in which they should function. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) published guidelines on Good Publication Practice in 1999[ 3 ] and continues to update these regularly.[ 4 ]

Study design

The design of the study is a collection of methods and procedures used to gather and analyze the data on variables defined in a research. A poorly designed study can never be recovered, whereas an inadequately analyzed study can be re-analyzed to reach a meaningful conclusion.[ 5 ] The study design should be clearly expressed in a written protocol. In clinical studies, the number of participants to be included in the analysis should be sufficiently large to give a definitive result. Local ethical research committees should hold back approval until the deficiencies in the design of the study have been corrected. All investigators should agree on the final protocol, and their contributions should be clearly defined.

Ethical approval

For all studies involving individuals or medical records, approval from a duly appointed research ethics committee is necessary. The research protocol should adhere strictly to the international standards such as those of the Council for International Medical Science Organizations.[ 6 ]

When human tissues or body fluids have been collected for one project for which ethical authorization and consent has been obtained, these preserved specimens cannot be used again without further permission. It should be presumed that no author can publish research of humans or animals that do not follow the ethical standards of the country where the article is published.[ 2 ]

Data analysis

The data analysis methodology should be clearly stated in the protocol. The variations such as post hoc analysis or data omission should be agreed upon and reported in the paper by all investigators.[ 7 ] The capacity for manipulating data electronically now is enormous. Original images should always be retained and any alteration should be revealed.

The International Committee of Medical Editors (the Vancouver Group) has developed authorship guidelines that allow each writer to make a substantial contribution throughout the process.[ 8 ] In the past honorary authorship had been employed widely. However, the concept that the professor or department head should inevitably find his/her way to a paper is no longer acceptable. Each contributor should be able to mention clearly how they took part in the study. Each author must take public responsibility for the work published in the journal, and it is desirable to have one senior author, to serve as a guarantor. Participation in fundraising, data collection, or general supervision of the research is insufficient for authorship. Authorship acknowledgment should be based on substantial contributions to: (1) concept and design, (2) interpretation of data, (3) drafts and critical revisions of intellectual content, and (4) final approval of the version to be published.[ 2 ]

There is a possible conflict of interest when an investigator, writer, publisher, or reviewer has a financial, personal interest, or opinion that may impair their objectivity, or improperly influence their behavior. Financial ties are the most visible competing interests. As a result of personal relationships, academic rivalry, and intellectual zeal, competing interests can also exist. Competing interests are not unethical as long as they are revealed. They should be disclosed to the ethics committee and to the editor of the journal to which a article is submitted.

P EER R EVIEW

Peer review is the method used to evaluate the quality of articles submitted to a journal. COPE has developed ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.[ 9 ] The affiliation between the author, the editor, and the peer reviewer is a confidential collaboration. It is only with the editor's permission the manuscript should be passed on to a colleague or other individuals. A reviewer or editor should not use the information contained in the paper for their benefit.[ 2 ] Journals should have clearly defined and communicated policies on the type of peer review used, for example, single-blinded, double-blinded, open, or postpublication.[ 10 ] Peer reviewers can play a vital function in figuring out data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, redundant or duplicate publication, and undeclared conflicts of interest.[ 11 ]

D UTIES OF E DITORS

Editors are the wardens of the scientific literature and are responsible for maintaining high research and publishing ethics standards. There may be competing interests among participants, and it is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that they do not affect the journal. They should not be hesitant to publish work that challenges previously published studies in their journal, and they should not reject studies with negative results.[ 2 ] Editors must act promptly if a published paper is found to have publication misconduct.[ 12 ]

R ESEARCH AND P UBLICATION M ISCONDUCT

Research misconduct represents a spectrum ranging from the errors of judgment (mistakes made in good faith) to deliberate fraud, usually categorized as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.[ 13 ]

Falsification is the changing or omission of research results (data) or manipulation of images or representations in a manner that distorts the data to support claims or hypotheses.[ 13 ]

Fabrication is the construction or addition of data, observations, or characterizations that never occurred in the gathering of data or running of experiments.[ 13 ]

Plagiarism is the use of another individual or group's published work or unpublished ideas, language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions and makes the representation of them as one's original work.[ 14 ] The advent of digital material and its ease of accessibility have accelerated the use of plagiarism.[ 15 ] In some instances, plagiarism is used as a tool to cover up language problems for those whom English is not their first language. Where language is a problem, the authors should always be encouraged to obtain help in preparing their manuscript and not resort to using other people's words. It is unacceptable to republish a paper with minor changes, without referring to the primary publication, and to present it to the readership as a new source.[ 16 ]

R EDUNDANT P UBLICATION

Redundant publication (sometimes referred to as duplicate or triplicate publication) is the term used when two or more papers that overlap in a significant way are published in different journals without cross-reference.[ 17 ] It is not uncommon for two or more papers involving the same or similar patient database to be published in sequence. The authors should disclose this to the editor and make a cross-reference to previous papers. It is permissible to publish a paper in another language as long as this is disclosed.

Motives for misconduct

The motives why investigators fabricate records are not understood. Improving understanding of why researchers commit misconduct and detrimental research practices (DRPs) is essential. A range of possible reasons are: (1) career and funding pressures, (2) institutional failures of oversight, (3) commercial conflicts of interest, (4) inadequate training, (5) erosion of standards of mentoring, and (6) part of a larger pattern of social deviance.[ 18 ]

Prevention of misconduct

The widespread nature of research and publication misconduct indicates that existing control measures are inadequate. Enhanced methods for detecting misconduct are required. Even if research policing were made more effective, the fundamental question of why certain individuals violate their duties as a scientist or medical researcher intentionally or unintentionally would not be addressed. Clear guidance on ethics should be emphasized during research training in all institutions actively involved in research.[ 19 ] Training is a crucial step in avoiding publication misconduct. All researchers should be presented with organizational guidance and publishing ethics when they join a new organization. Misconduct in the study may be more common when investigators are alone with an inadequate review of data by a project supervisor. Research integrity depends on excellent communication between contributors, with frequent discussion of project progress and openness to any difficulties in adhering to the research protocol. Everyone should agree with the changes to the protocol. Maintaining documents must be of the highest quality. The law requires data and photographic record of experimental results to be maintained for 15 years. The records of laboratory experiments should be held in the department where the study is carried out and should be available for review for at least 15 years.

Strategies to support research integrity

• Ensure policies governing academic research not only are in place but are followed
• Enforce expectations for process rigor
• Communicate expectations for accurate accounting of time spent on research activities
• Evaluate the grant accounting function
• Establish an office of research integrity.[ 20 ]

C ONCLUSION

Accurate and ethical reporting is crucial to the quality of scientific research that is published. Unethical practices such as falsification of data and plagiarism cause long-term damage to the dependability of published literature. Whilst such practices do still exist, these can be prevented by having robust institutional ethical processes in place, regular training, and editorial vigilance.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

This page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly.

Cover Story

Five principles for research ethics

Cover your bases with these ethical strategies

By DEBORAH SMITH

Monitor Staff

January 2003, Vol 34, No. 1

Print version: page 56

13 min read

• Conducting Research

Not that long ago, academicians were often cautious about airing the ethical dilemmas they faced in their research and academic work, but that environment is changing today. Psychologists in academe are more likely to seek out the advice of their colleagues on issues ranging from supervising graduate students to how to handle sensitive research data , says George Mason University psychologist June Tangney, PhD.

"There has been a real change in the last 10 years in people talking more frequently and more openly about ethical dilemmas of all sorts," she explains.

Indeed, researchers face an array of ethical requirements: They must meet professional, institutional and federal standards for conducting research with human participants, often supervise students they also teach and have to sort out authorship issues, just to name a few.

Here are five recommendations APA's Science Directorate gives to help researchers steer clear of ethical quandaries:

1. Discuss intellectual property frankly

Academe's competitive "publish-or-perish" mindset can be a recipe for trouble when it comes to who gets credit for authorship . The best way to avoid disagreements about who should get credit and in what order is to talk about these issues at the beginning of a working relationship, even though many people often feel uncomfortable about such topics.

"It's almost like talking about money," explains Tangney. "People don't want to appear to be greedy or presumptuous."

APA's Ethics Code offers some guidance: It specifies that "faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate." When researchers and students put such understandings in writing, they have a helpful tool to continually discuss and evaluate contributions as the research progresses.

However, even the best plans can result in disputes, which often occur because people look at the same situation differently. "While authorship should reflect the contribution," says APA Ethics Office Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, "we know from social science research that people often overvalue their contributions to a project. We frequently see that in authorship-type situations. In many instances, both parties genuinely believe they're right." APA's Ethics Code stipulates that psychologists take credit only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed and that publication credit should accurately reflect the relative contributions: "Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit," says the code. "Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement."

The same rules apply to students. If they contribute substantively to the conceptualization, design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the research reported, they should be listed as authors. Contributions that are primarily technical don't warrant authorship. In the same vein, advisers should not expect ex-officio authorship on their students' work.

Matthew McGue, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, says his psychology department has instituted a procedure to avoid murky authorship issues. "We actually have a formal process here where students make proposals for anything they do on the project," he explains. The process allows students and faculty to more easily talk about research responsibility, distribution and authorship.

Psychologists should also be cognizant of situations where they have access to confidential ideas or research, such as reviewing journal manuscripts or research grants, or hearing new ideas during a presentation or informal conversation. While it's unlikely reviewers can purge all of the information in an interesting manuscript from their thinking, it's still unethical to take those ideas without giving credit to the originator.

"If you are a grant reviewer or a journal manuscript reviewer [who] sees someone's research [that] hasn't been published yet, you owe that person a duty of confidentiality and anonymity," says Gerald P. Koocher, PhD, editor of the journal Ethics and Behavior and co-author of "Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases" (Oxford University Press, 1998).

Researchers also need to meet their ethical obligations once their research is published: If authors learn of errors that change the interpretation of research findings, they are ethically obligated to promptly correct the errors in a correction, retraction, erratum or by other means.

To be able to answer questions about study authenticity and allow others to reanalyze the results, authors should archive primary data and accompanying records for at least five years, advises University of Minnesota psychologist and researcher Matthew McGue, PhD. "Store all your data. Don't destroy it," he says. "Because if someone charges that you did something wrong, you can go back."

"It seems simple, but this can be a tricky area," says Susan Knapp, APA's deputy publisher. "The APA Publication Manual Section 8.05 has some general advice on what to retain and suggestions about things to consider in sharing data."

The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to release their data to others who want to verify their conclusions, provided that participants' confidentiality can be protected and as long as legal rights concerning proprietary data don't preclude their release. However, the code also notes that psychologists who request data in these circumstances can only use the shared data for reanalysis; for any other use, they must obtain a prior written agreement.

2. Be conscious of multiple roles

APA's Ethics Code says psychologists should avoid relationships that could reasonably impair their professional performance or could exploit or harm others. But it also notes that many kinds of multiple relationships aren't unethical--as long as they're not reasonably expected to have adverse effects.

That notwithstanding, psychologists should think carefully before entering into multiple relationships with any person or group, such as recruiting students or clients as participants in research studies or investigating the effectiveness of a product of a company whose stock they own.

For example, when recruiting students from your Psychology 101 course to participate in an experiment, be sure to make clear that participation is voluntary. If participation is a course requirement, be sure to note that in the class syllabus, and ensure that participation has educative value by, for instance, providing a thorough debriefing to enhance students' understanding of the study. The 2002 Ethics Code also mandates in Standard 8.04b that students be given equitable alternatives to participating in research.

Perhaps one of the most common multiple roles for researchers is being both a mentor and lab supervisor to students they also teach in class. Psychologists need to be especially cautious that they don't abuse the power differential between themselves and students, say experts. They shouldn't, for example, use their clout as professors to coerce students into taking on additional research duties.

By outlining the nature and structure of the supervisory relationship before supervision or mentoring begins, both parties can avoid misunderstandings, says George Mason University's Tangney. It's helpful to create a written agreement that includes both parties' responsibilities as well as authorship considerations, intensity of the supervision and other key aspects of the job.

"While that's the ideal situation, in practice we do a lot less of that than we ought to," she notes. "Part of it is not having foresight up front of how a project or research study is going to unfold."

That's why experts also recommend that supervisors set up timely and specific methods to give students feedback and keep a record of the supervision, including meeting times, issues discussed and duties assigned.

If psychologists do find that they are in potentially harmful multiple relationships, they are ethically mandated to take steps to resolve them in the best interest of the person or group while complying with the Ethics Code.

3. Follow informed-consent rules

When done properly, the consent process ensures that individuals are voluntarily participating in the research with full knowledge of relevant risks and benefits.

"The federal standard is that the person must have all of the information that might reasonably influence their willingness to participate in a form that they can understand and comprehend," says Koocher, dean of Simmons College's School for Health Studies.

APA's Ethics Code mandates that psychologists who conduct research should inform participants about:

The purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures.

Participants' rights to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once it has started, as well as the anticipated consequences of doing so.

Reasonably foreseeable factors that may influence their willingness to participate, such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects.

Any prospective research benefits.

Limits of confidentiality, such as data coding, disposal, sharing and archiving, and when confidentiality must be broken.

Incentives for participation.

Who participants can contact with questions.

Experts also suggest covering the likelihood, magnitude and duration of harm or benefit of participation, emphasizing that their involvement is voluntary and discussing treatment alternatives, if relevant to the research.

Keep in mind that the Ethics Code includes specific mandates for researchers who conduct experimental treatment research. Specifically, they must inform individuals about the experimental nature of the treatment, services that will or will not be available to the control groups, how participants will be assigned to treatments and control groups, available treatment alternatives and compensation or monetary costs of participation.

If research participants or clients are not competent to evaluate the risks and benefits of participation themselves--for example, minors or people with cognitive disabilities--then the person who's giving permission must have access to that same information, says Koocher.

Remember that a signed consent form doesn't mean the informing process can be glossed over, say ethics experts. In fact, the APA Ethics Code says psychologists can skip informed consent in two instances only: When permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations, or when the research would not reasonably be expected to distress or harm participants and involves one of the following:

The study of normal educational practices, curricula or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings.

Anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability or reputation, and for which confidentiality is protected.

The study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected.

If psychologists are precluded from obtaining full consent at the beginning--for example, if the protocol includes deception, recording spontaneous behavior or the use of a confederate--they should be sure to offer a full debriefing after data collection and provide people with an opportunity to reiterate their consent, advise experts.

The code also says psychologists should make reasonable efforts to avoid offering "excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation."

4. Respect confidentiality and privacy

Upholding individuals' rights to confidentiality and privacy is a central tenet of every psychologist's work. However, many privacy issues are idiosyncratic to the research population, writes Susan Folkman, PhD, in " Ethics in Research with Human Participants " (APA, 2000). For instance, researchers need to devise ways to ask whether participants are willing to talk about sensitive topics without putting them in awkward situations, say experts. That could mean they provide a set of increasingly detailed interview questions so that participants can stop if they feel uncomfortable.

And because research participants have the freedom to choose how much information about themselves they will reveal and under what circumstances, psychologists should be careful when recruiting participants for a study, says Sangeeta Panicker, PhD, director of the APA Science Directorate's Research Ethics Office. For example, it's inappropriate to obtain contact information of members of a support group to solicit their participation in research. However, you could give your colleague who facilitates the group a letter to distribute that explains your research study and provides a way for individuals to contact you, if they're interested.

Other steps researchers should take include:

Discuss the limits of confidentiality. Give participants information about how their data will be used, what will be done with case materials, photos and audio and video recordings, and secure their consent.

Know federal and state law. Know the ins and outs of state and federal law that might apply to your research. For instance, the Goals 2000: Education Act of 1994 prohibits asking children about religion, sex or family life without parental permission.

Another example is that, while most states only require licensed psychologists to comply with mandatory reporting laws, some laws also require researchers to report abuse and neglect. That's why it's important for researchers to plan for situations in which they may learn of such reportable offenses. Generally, research psychologists can consult with a clinician or their institution's legal department to decide the best course of action.

Take practical security measures. Be sure confidential records are stored in a secure area with limited access, and consider stripping them of identifying information, if feasible. Also, be aware of situations where confidentiality could inadvertently be breached, such as having confidential conversations in a room that's not soundproof or putting participants' names on bills paid by accounting departments.

Think about data sharing before research begins. If researchers plan to share their data with others, they should note that in the consent process, specifying how they will be shared and whether data will be anonymous. For example, researchers could have difficulty sharing sensitive data they've collected in a study of adults with serious mental illnesses because they failed to ask participants for permission to share the data. Or developmental data collected on videotape may be a valuable resource for sharing, but unless a researcher asked permission back then to share videotapes, it would be unethical to do so. When sharing, psychologists should use established techniques when possible to protect confidentiality, such as coding data to hide identities. "But be aware that it may be almost impossible to entirely cloak identity, especially if your data include video or audio recordings or can be linked to larger databases," says Merry Bullock, PhD, associate executive director in APA's Science Directorate.

Understand the limits of the Internet. Since Web technology is constantly evolving, psychologists need to be technologically savvy to conduct research online and cautious when exchanging confidential information electronically. If you're not a Internet whiz, get the help of someone who is. Otherwise, it may be possible for others to tap into data that you thought was properly protected.

5. Tap into ethics resources

One of the best ways researchers can avoid and resolve ethical dilemmas is to know both what their ethical obligations are and what resources are available to them.

"Researchers can help themselves make ethical issues salient by reminding themselves of the basic underpinnings of research and professional ethics," says Bullock. Those basics include:

The Belmont Report. Released by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1979, the report provided the ethical framework for ensuing human participant research regulations and still serves as the basis for human participant protection legislation (see Further Reading).

APA's Ethics Code , which offers general principles and specific guidance for research activities.

Moreover, despite the sometimes tense relationship researchers can have with their institutional review boards (IRBs), these groups can often help researchers think about how to address potential dilemmas before projects begin, says Panicker. But psychologists must first give their IRBs the information they need to properly understand a research proposal.

"Be sure to provide the IRB with detailed and comprehensive information about the study, such as the consent process, how participants will be recruited and how confidential information will be protected," says Bullock. "The more information you give your IRB, the better educated its members will become about behavioral research, and the easier it will be for them to facilitate your research."

As cliché as it may be, says Panicker, thinking positively about your interactions with an IRB can help smooth the process for both researchers and the IRBs reviewing their work.

Further reading

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57 (12).

Sales, B.D., & Folkman, S. (Eds.). (2000). Ethics in research with human participants . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

APA's Research Ethics Office in the Science Directorate; e-mail ; Web site: APA Science .

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers educational materials on human subjects .

NIH Bioethics Resources Web site .

The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of Research Integrity Web site .

DHHS Office of Human Research Protections Web site .

The 1979 Belmont Report on protecting human subjects .

Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs Web site: www.aahrpp.org .

Related Articles

• Ethics in research with animals

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

Research Ethics Codes and Guidelines

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 02 April 2020
• Cite this reference work entry

• Margit Sutrop 2 ,
• Mari-Liisa Parder 3 &
• Marten Juurik 3  

3023 Accesses

7 Citations

3 Altmetric

Although the origin of professional codes of ethics can be traced back to ancient Greece, their peak was in the late twentieth century with more than 70% of codes of ethics being created after 1990. Today professional ethical standards are formulated as codes of ethics, sets of principles or guidelines, declarations, conventions, charters, or laws, and they differ in scope, form, and content. As there is no consensus on what is meant by “research ethics” and “research integrity,” both concepts are clarified here.

Codes of ethics for scientists are often written in reaction to misconduct cases. However, the sudden boom in codes of ethics is also related to growing pressures upon scientists and the conflicting duties they face. Solutions to the issue of the vast number of codes and guidelines – creating a few universal general codes for research or harmonization of existing documents – are also both problematic. A universal code makes sacrifices on the level of content to gain acceptance internationally, and differences in values will continue to pose ethical dilemmas and conflict.

The main obstacles and solutions in order to make codes of ethics work better are highlighted. It is argued that the process of drafting codes of ethics should be inclusive. To engage people real-life cases should be discussed for clarifying implicit values. Implementation requires skills or moral discussion and substantiation of positions. Codes of ethics, the shared understanding of values should be sought within professions. Declared and actual values should be in coherence both in the leadership of the organization and organizational culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethics and Integrity in Research: Disciplines and Professions

Codes of Ethics and Research Integrity

All European Academies (ALLEA) (2011) The European code of conduct for research integrity. European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, pp 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/e648332011-002

Book   Google Scholar  

American Council on Science and Health (2017) The Brussels declaration – ethics and principles for science and society. http://www.euroscientist.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/Brussels-Declaration.pdf

American Psychological Association (APA) (2017) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

Google Scholar  

Anderson MS, Shaw MA, Steneck NH et al (2013) Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In: Higher education: handbook of theory and research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Banks SJ (2015) From research integrity to researcher integrity: issues of conduct, competence and commitment. Acad Soc Sci Br Sociol Assoc Event Virtue Ethics Pract Rev Soc Sci Res:1–12. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4497.9040

Barker RL (1988) Just whose code of ethics should the independent practitioner follow? J Indep Soc Work 2:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1300/J283v02n04_01

Article   Google Scholar  

Bayles MD (1988) The professional-client relationship. In: Callahan JC (ed) Ethical issues in professional life. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–120

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.3138/physio.61.3.154

Benedek TG (2014) “Case Neisser”: experimental design, the beginnings of immunology, and informed consent. Perspect Biol Med 57:249–267. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2014.0018

Beyerstein D (1993) The functions and limitations of professional codes of ethics. In: Winkler ER, Coombs JR (eds) Applied ethics: a reader. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 416–421

Blake V, Joffe S, Kodish E (2011) Harmonization of ethics policies in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 39:70–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00551.x

Bonn NA, Godecharle S, Dierickx K (2017) European universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct: accessibility, approaches, and content. Res Integr Res Misconduct 12:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616688980

Braxton JM (2010) Norms and the work of colleges and universities: introduction to the special issue – norms in academia. J High Educ 81:243–250

Bretag T, Mahmud S, Wallace M et al (2011) Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. Int J Educ Integr 7:3–12. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v7i2.759

Brief AP, Dukerich JM, Brown PR, Brett JF (1996) What’ s wrong with the treadway commission report? Experimental analyses of the effects of personal on values and codes of conduct fraudulent financial reporting. J Bus Ethics 15:183–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705586

British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018) Ethical guidelines for educational research, 4th edn. British Educational Research Association, London

Carlson RV, Boyd KM, Webb DJ (2004) The revision of the declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. Br J Clin Pharmacol 57:695–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02103.x

Centre for Ethics; University of Tartu (2017) Estonian code of conduct for research integrity. https://www.eetika.ee/en/estonian-code-conduct-research-integrity

Cox D, La Caze M, Levine MP (2003) Integrity and the fragile self. Ashgate, Aldershot

Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014) Danish code of conduct for research integrity. https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/the-danish-code-ofconduct-for-research-integrity

Davies SR (2018) An ethics of the system: talking to scientists about research integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 25:1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y

Davis M (1991) Thinking like an engineer: the place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philos Public Aff 20:150–167

de Lange DW, Guidet B, Andersen FH et al (2019) Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe. BMC Med Ethics 20:1–7

Dienhart J (1995) Rationality, ethical codes, and an egalitarian justification of ethical expertise: implications for professions and organizations. Bus Ethics Q 5:419–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857392

Dobson J (2005) Monkey business: a neo-Darwinist approach to ethics codes. Financ Anal J 61(3):59–64. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v61.n3.2728

Doppelfeld E (2007) Harmonization of research ethics committees – are there limits? Japan Med Assoc J 50:493–494

Drenth PJD (2010) Research integrity: protecting science, society and individuals. Eur Rev 18:417–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798710000104

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2008) An ethical framework for biomedical research. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D (eds) The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 123–135

Evers K (2003) Codes of conduct. Standards for ethics in research. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-39.4.904

Fieldsend D (2011) Unity in diversity: can there ever be a true European consensus in bioethics? Hum Reprod Genet Ethics 17:222–234. https://doi.org/10.1558/hrge.v17i2.222

Fjellstrom R (2005) Respect for persons, respect for integrity. Med Health Care Philos 8:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-004-7694-3

Forsberg E-M, Anthun FO, Bailey S et al (2018) Working with research integrity – guidance for research performing organisations: the Bonn PRINTEGER statement. Sci Eng Ethics 24:1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4

Franzen M, Rödder S, Weingart P (2007) Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Rep 8:3. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400884

Fuster GG, Gutwirth S (2016) Promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in research. D II.4 Legal analysis. https://printeger.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/D2.4.pdf . https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2016.11.2.123

Gowans CW (1987) Moral dilemmas. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Greve HR, Palmer D, Pozner JE (2010) Organizations gone wild: the causes, processes and consequences of organizational misconduct. Acad Manag Ann 4:53–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003654186

Guillén M, Melé D, Murphy P (2002) European vs. American approaches to institutionalisation of business ethics: the Spanish case. Bus Ethics A Eur Rev 11:167–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00273

Hakulinen T, Arbyn M, Brewster DH et al (2011) Harmonization may be counterproductive – at least for parts of Europe where public health research operates effectively. Eur J Pub Health 21:686–687. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckr149

Hassan S, Wright BE, Yuki G (2014) Does ethical leadership matter in government? Effects on organizational commitment, absenteeism, and willingness to report ethical problems. Public Adm Rev 74:333–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12216

Iphofen R (2009) Ethical decision making in social research: a practical guide. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Israel M, Hay I (2006) Research ethics for social scientists. SAGE, London

Jordan SR (2013) Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. J Acad Ethics 11:243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9190-y

Kaiser M (2014) The integrity of science – lost in translation? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 28:339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2014.03.003

Kaptein M, Schwartz MS (2008) The effectiveness of business codes: a critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. J Bus Ethics 77:111–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9305-0

Kidd D (1996) The international conference on harmonization of pharmaceutical regulations the European medicines evaluation agency, and the FDA: who’s zooming who? Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 4:183–206

Kitchener KS, Kitchener RF (2009) Social science research ethics. In: Mertens DM, Ginsberg PE (eds) The handbook of social research ethics. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp 5–23

Kjonstad B, Willmott H (1995) Business ethics: restrictive or empowering? J Bus Ethics 14:445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872086

Knoppers BM (2014) International ethics harmonization and the global alliance for genomics and health. Genome Med 6:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm530

Komić D, Marušić SL, Marušić A (2015) Research integrity and research ethics in professional codes of ethics: survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PLoS One 10:e0133662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662

Ladd J (1991) The quest for a code of professional ethics: an intellectual and moral confusion. In: Deborah GJ (ed) Ethical issues in engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 130–136

Lee JJ (2005) What is past is prologue: the international conference on harmonization and lessons learned from European drug regulations harmonization. Univ Pennsylvania J Int Econ Law 26:151–191

Levine FJ, Skedsvold PR (2008) Behavioral and social science research. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D (eds) The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 336–355. https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2008.29.3122

Li R, Barnes M, Aldinger CE, Bierer BE (2015) Global clinical trials: ethics, harmonization and commitments to transparency. Harv Public Heal Rev 5:1–7

Luegenbiehl HC (1991) Codes of ethics and the moral education of engineers. In: Deborah GJ (ed) Ethical issues in engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Macfarlane B (2009) Researching with integrity: the ethics of academic inquiry. Routledge, New York/London

Mahmud S, Bretag T (2014) Fostering integrity in postgraduate research: an evidence-based policy and support framework. Account Res 21:122–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.847668

Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW, Danforth TL (2009) International harmonization of regulation of nanomedicine. Stud Ethics Law Technol 3:Article 6

Marres N (2007) The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Soc Stud Sci 37:759–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706077367

Mason HE (1996) Moral dilemmas and moral theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Mayer T, Steneck N (2007) Final report to ESF and ORI. First world conference on research integrity: fostering responsible research, pp 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2007.00144.x

Mcfall L (1987) Integrity. Ethics 98:5–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/292912

McGonigle I, Shomron N (2016) Privacy, anonymity and subjectivity in genomic research. Genet Res (Camb) 98:10–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672315000221

Meriste H, Parder M-L, Lõuk K et al (2016) Normative analysis of research integrity and misconduct. https://printeger.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/D2.3.pdf

Molzon JA, Giaquinto A, Lindstrom L et al (2011) The value and benefits of the international conference on harmonisation to drug regulatory authorities: advancing harmonization for better public health. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89:503–512. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2011.10

Morin K (2005) Code of ethics for bioethicists: medicine’s lessons worth heeding. Am J Bioeth 5:59–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160500245501

National Academy of Sciences (2002) Integrity in scientific research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2009) On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd edn. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/12192

Neves M d CP (2018) On (scientific) integrity: conceptual clarification. Med Health Care Philos 21:181–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9796-8

OeAWI (2016) OeAWI guidelines for good scientific practice. https://www.cdg.ac.at/fileadmin/main/documents/Sonstige_Dokumente/160418_OeAWI_Richtlinien_Broschuere_DE_EN.pdf

Office of the Secretary, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1979) The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Office of the Secretary, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Orr RD, Pang N, Pellegrino ED, Siegler M (1997) Use of the Hippocratic oath: a review of twentieth century practice and a content analysis of oaths administered in medical schools in the US and Canada in 1993. J Clin Ethics 8:377–388

Painter-Morland M (2010) Questioning corporate codes of ethics. Bus Ethics 19:265–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01591.x

Papademas D (2009) IVSA code of research ethics and guidelines. Vis Stud 24:250–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860903309187

Parder M-L, Juurik M (2019) Reporting on existing codes and guidelines. Pro-Res D1.1, Tartu, European Commission: PRO-RES - PROmoting integrity in the use of RESearch results. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3560777

Parry J (2017) Developing standards for research practice: some issues for consideration. In: Iphofen R (ed) Finding common ground: consensus in research ethics across the social sciences. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp 77–101

Pipes RB, Holstein JE, Aguirre MG (2005) Examining the personal-professional distinction 8 ethics codes and the difficulty of drawing a boundary. Am Psychol 60:325–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.4.325

Pritchard MS (2006) Professional integrity: thinking ethically. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence

Resnik DB (1998) The ethics of science: an introduction. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00123

Resnik DB (2009) International standards for research integrity: an idea whose time has come? Account Res 16:218–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620903065350

Resnik DB, Rasmussen LM, Kissling GE (2015) An international study of research misconduct policies. Account Res 22:249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218

Russel WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London

Ruyter KW (2003) Forskningsetikk: Beskyttelse av enkeltpersoner og samfunn. Gyldendal akademisk, Oslo

Sarauw LL, Degn L, Ørberg JW (2019) Researcher development through doctoral training in research integrity. Int J Acad Dev 24:178–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1595626

Schaubroeck JM, Hannah ST, Avolio BJ et al (2012) Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Acad Manag J 55:1053–1078. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0064

Schein EH (2010) Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2010.518579

Schwitzgebel E (2009) Do ethicists steal more books? Philos Psychol 22:711–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080903409952

Shamoo AE, Resnik DB (2015) Responsible conduct of research, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Sims RR, Brinkmann J (2003) Enron ethics (or: culture matters more than codes). J Bus 45:243–256

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2018.pb.0018.1806

Spielthenner G (2015) Why comply with a code of ethics? Med Health Care Philos 18:195–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9594-5

Starr WC (1983) Codes of ethics towards a rule-utilitarian justification. J Bus Ethics 2:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381700

Sutrop M (2016) Kuidas panna eetikakoodeksid paremini toimima. In: Sutrop M (ed) Eetikakoodeksid. Väärtused, normid ja eetilised dilemmad. Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, Tartu, pp 85–103

Townend D (2018) Conclusion: harmonisation in genomic and health data sharing for research : an impossible dream? Hum Genet 137:657–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-018-1924-x

UNESCO (2015) Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. UNESCO, Paris

UNESCO (2017) Recommendation on science and scientific researchers; 2018. UNESCO, Paris, pp 1–2

Unger S (1991) Codes of engineering ethics. In: Johnson DG (ed) Ethical issues in engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02536578

Urushihara H, Parmenter L, Tashiro S et al (2017) Bridge the gap: the need for harmonized regulatory and ethical standards for postmarketing observational studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 26:1299–1306. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4269

Werhane P, Doering J (2007) Conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment. In: Elliot D, Stern JD (eds) Researcher ethics: a reader. University Press of New England, London, pp 165–189

World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053

Wulf K (2011) From codes of conduct to ethics and compliance programs. Recent developments in the United States. Logos Verlag, Berlin

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Margit Sutrop

Centre for Ethics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Mari-Liisa Parder & Marten Juurik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margit Sutrop .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Chatelaillon Plage, France

Ron Iphofen

Additional information

The ideas expressed in this chapter have been supported by the Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies (European Union, European Regional Development Fund) and are related to research projects IUT20-5 (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research) and support for sectoral R&D – RITA, action 4 – study “Developing Estonian National System for Monitoring and Supporting Ethics in Scientific Research.” This work has also profited from research done in the European Commission financed H2020 projects PRINTEGER and PRO-RES. Ilmar Anvelt and Tiina Kirss helped with English expression.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Sutrop, M., Parder, ML., Juurik, M. (2020). Research Ethics Codes and Guidelines. In: Iphofen, R. (eds) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_2

Published : 02 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-16758-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-16759-2

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• FlashLine Login
• Phone Directory
• Maps & Directions
• About Overview
• Administration
• Advisory Board
• Alumni Relations
• Campus Advisories
• Campus History
• Facts & Figures
• Faculty Resources
• Media & News
• Offices & Departments
• Staff Resources
• Support the Campus
• Academics Overview
• Degrees, Majors & Minors
• Academic Support Services
• Academic Departments
• Advising Services
• Class Schedules & Final Exams
• Graduation & Commencement
• Student Accessibility Services
• Honors Program
• Summer Sessions
• Writing Tutoring
• Admissions Overview
• Admission Types & Tips
• Tours & Events
• Transfer Students
• Admissions Appointments
• Admissions Staff
• Newly Admitted Students
• First Step: First-Year Advising & Registration
• For School Counselors
• Senior Guest Program
• College Credit Plus
• Rising Scholars
• Financial Aid
• Scholarships
• Tuition & Fees
• Ohio College Comeback
• Life at Stark Overview
• Annual Security Report
• Campus Events
• Computer Services
• First Year Experience
• Flash Bistro
• Mental Health Resources & Support
• Student Involvement & Organizations
• Student Support Services
• Recreation & Wellness Center
• Parking Services
• Veterans Services
• Corporate University & Conference Center Overview
• Corporate University
• Conference Center
• Directions & Maps
• Locations Overview
• East Liverpool
• Regional Campuses
• Other U.S. Academic Locations
• Kent State Worldwide
• Campus Safety Overview
• ALICE Workshops
• Fingerprinting & Background Checks
• Step Up Speak Out

Ethical Writing & Reliable Sources

What is ethical writing and why is it important.

• Ethical writing is writing that clearly indicates (via documentation) where source material has been incorporated into one’s own writing.
• Ethical writing is also writing that acknowledges a range of perspectives on an issue.  
• Ethical writing is writing with a level of inclusion, respect, and acknowledgement of diversity.
• The importance of ethical writing, then, is based not only upon the avoidance of plagiarism, but also avoiding the weaknesses of bias and exclusive language (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.) This strengthens the credibility and persuasiveness of the writer’s argument.

WAYS TO FORM A COMPLETE ARGUMENT

• Include many different viewpoints; it helps to ground your argument and make your own contribution stand out.
• Respect, and take seriously, the opinions and beliefs of others. Explain other opinions fully and clearly, without bias.
• Use an accredited opposing viewpoint. Choose an opposing argument that’s worth countering, not an easily discredited “straw man.”

CONSIDERING WORDING

• Try to avoid making assumptions about what your audience knows or about who they are.
• Try to avoid overly emotional words, euphemisms, and other types of “loaded language.”
• Consider factors such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, ability, etc. when writing, and avoid stereotypes.
• For example, say “police officer” rather than “policeman” (which would exclude female police officers).

CITING SOURCES

• Cite sources properly, using the most recent documentation style sheet/manual available.
• Cite any and all ideas that are “borrowed” (anything that did not originate with you).
• Cite BOTH paraphrases AND direct quotes.
• Ask professors which citation style is preferable (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)

For further discussion of ethical writing practices, see The Everyday Writer by Andrea Lunsford.

RELIABLE RESOURCES

How to determine the credibility of a source.

• Research the writer. What are his/her credentials?
• What press published it/what website posted it?
• How long ago was it created? Is it still viable?
• Why was it created? Does it represent a particular viewpoint?
• Is it directly relevant to your argument? Is it something your audience wants/needs to know?
• If it’s from the internet, is it a credible site? How do you know? 
• Do not use Wikipedia or any other non-juried collaborative site!
• Go to the Purdue Owl for more details.

FINDING RELIABLE RESOURCES

Strive for objective research.

• Objective research is when you as a student search for answers without being overly influenced by your own personal beliefs or preconceived notions about the topic.
• One thing to be sure of while researching is to not build an opinion-based argument. This is where you pick and choose only those bits of information that support your viewpoint, while ignoring any contradictory evidence.

Visit the Campus Library

• The Campus Library has a multitude of ways that you can find reliable sources. One of the most beneficial databases can be found on their website. It is called Academic Search Complete (under the “Finding Articles” tab). It contains a range of databases that will pertain to your specific subject.
• Another database that can be found in the Library is access to the Ohio Link Program. Ohio link is a conglomeration of all state funded libraries in Ohio. If a book is in circulation in the state of Ohio, you can request it and have it in your hands within two weeks free of charge.
• For assistance using these programs, ask a librarian for help.

Academic Sources

• There are many different types of sources available on the internet, in publications, and in other media. Making sure that the source is academically appropriate is key to academic success. Investigate your sources before using them. Have they been thoroughly reviewed by experts in the field before publication?
• Look for books published by university and other well-known, well-respected presses. Check book reviews. What do scholars think of it?
• Academic articles are another great source for research. Reputable academic journals are different from “popular press” magazines. Many library databases allow you to limit your searches to academic sources. Look for the “Scholarly Journals” box to check in “Search Options” before you hit the “Search” button.
• Writer's Toolbox
• Argumentative Writing
• Creating An Outline
• Creating Strong Paragraphs
• Creating Thesis Statements
• Effective Prewriting Techniques
• Ethical Writing & Reliable Sources
• Incorporating Quotes
• Lab Reports and Scientific Writing
• Reading Critically
• Revision Strategies
• Understanding Academic Language
• Writing Essay Exams
• Writing a Conclusion
• Writing about Literature
• Writing an Introduction
• Catching Fragments & Run-Ons
• Confused Diction Errors
• Dangling Modifiers
• Editing and Proofreading Tips
• Subject-Verb Agreement
• Using Apostrophes
• Using Commas
• Using Conjunctions
• Using Punctuation
• Using Semicolons
• Using Simple and Compound Sentences
• Using Transitions

Mailing Address

Street address.

• 330-499-9600
• [email protected]
• Kent State Kent Campus - flickr
• Kent State Kent Campus - linkedin
• Kent State Kent Campus - facebook
• Kent State Kent Campus - X
• Kent State Kent Campus - youtube
• Kent State Kent Campus - instagram
• Campus Safety
• Jobs & Employment
• For Faculty
• For Our Alumni
• Privacy Statement
• University DACA Response
• Website Feedback Form

• Insights blog

Ethics for authors

Guidance, support, and your ethics checklist, what does ethics mean in journal publishing.

Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential part of every researcher’s career. Benefits to you as the author (and to your funder and institution) come from the work that is done to make sure that every article adheres to certain standards. For example, researchers must report their work accurately so that other people can make use of it and apply it.

The Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies set out many of the guidelines for ethical publishing which authors should understand and follow. There is also ethical guidance for  journal editors and peer reviewers . Every journal also explains its publishing and peer-review policy on its Aims & Scope page on Taylor & Francis Online,  or for F1000Research, you can find the editorial and ethical policies here .

Below are the major ethical issues you should be aware of as an author. Use these, our Editorial Policies , and the infographic (also available in Chinese ) to guide you as you submit and publish your research.

Taylor & Francis is a member of the Committee of Publications Ethics (COPE). COPE provides ethical guidelines and codes of conduct for publishers, journal editors, and reviewers.

Get familiar with instructions for authors

Be prepared, speed up your submission, and make sure nothing is forgotten by understanding a journal’s individual requirements.

Guidance on ethical issues for authors

日本語版のダウンロードはこちらから

한국어 가이드를 다운받으세요.

下载中文版学术出版道德规范

Case 1: Authorship

Every author listed on a journal article should have made a significant contribution to the work reported. This could be in terms of research conception or design, or acquisition of data, or the analysis and interpretation of data. As an author or co-author, you share responsibility and accountability for the content of your article.

Read more on defining “authorship” : co-authors, corresponding authors, and affiliations.

What to avoid:

Gift (guest) authorship: where someone is added to the list of authors who has not been involved in writing the paper.

Ghost authorship: where someone has been involved in writing the paper but is not included in the list of authors.

Case 2: Plagiarism

Committee of Publications Ethics (COPE)

When citing others’ (or your own) previous work, please make sure you have:

Clearly marked quoted verbatim text from another source with quotation marks.

Attributed and referenced the source of the quotation clearly within the text and in the Reference section.

Obtained permission from the original publisher and rightsholder when using previously published figures or tables.

If you are discussing one particular source at different points in your paper, make sure you correctly cite every instance.

Make sure you avoid accidental plagiarism by getting your work checked for similarities.

Make sure you avoid self-plagiarism

Self-plagiarism is the redundant reuse of your own work, usually without proper citation. It creates repetition in the academic literature and can skew meta-analyses if you publish the same sets of data multiple times as “new” data. Therefore, if you’re discussing your own previous work, make sure you cite it.

Taylor & Francis uses CrossCheck to screen for unoriginal material. Authors submitting to a Taylor & Francis journal should be aware that their paper may be submitted to CrossCheck at any point during the peer-review or production process.

Any allegations of plagiarism or self-plagiarism made to a journal will be investigated by the editor of the journal and Taylor & Francis. If the allegations appear to be founded, we will then contact all named authors of the paper and request an explanation of the overlapping material. We may ask Journal Editorial Board members to assist in further evaluation of the paper and allegations. If the explanation is not satisfactory we will reject the submission. We may also choose not accept future submissions.

Read our full plagiarism policies and guidance for authors to find out what plagiarism is (and isn’t) and how you can avoid it.

Case 3: Data fabrication / falsification

It is essential that all data is accurate, and representative of your research. Data sharing is more and more prevalent, increasing the transparency of raw data. Some journals request that you upload raw data as a supplemental file for publication (you can check the instruction for authors to see if this is the case on the journal you are submitting to). Some journals and platforms such as F1000Research advocate a more progressive open data policy , requiring the raw data underlying an article to be openly available, so it’s crucial to be aware of this when submitting your work.

Taylor & Francis encourages you to submit your supplemental data with your article. Find out how we host it, and make it more discoverable .

Cases of data fabrication/falsification will be evaluated by the editor of the journal and Taylor & Francis. We may then ask authors to provide supporting raw data where required. We may also ask Journal Editorial Board members to assist in further evaluation of the paper and allegations. If the explanation is not satisfactory we will reject the submission. We may also choose not accept future submissions.

Case 4: Competing interests

It is very important to be honest about any competing interests, whether sources of research funding, direct or indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, or other support.

Read our full guidelines on what a competing interest is and how to declare it when you submit your paper .

For some areas of research, such as medicine, evidence of ethical approval needs to be provided before the journal will publish the research. Always check the journal’s instructions for authors for information about proof of ethics approval.

If an author does not declare a competing interest to the journal upon submission, or during review, and it affects the actual or potential interpretation of the results, the paper may be rejected or retracted.

Ready to submit your paper? Your ethics checklist

Before you submit, make sure you’ve:

Read the journal’s instructions for authors, and checked and followed any instructions regarding data sets, ethics approval, or statements.

Named all authors on the paper, and the online submission form.

Referenced all material in the text clearly and thoroughly.

Carefully checked data and included any supplemental data required by the journal.

Declared any relevant competing interests to the journal.

Obtained (written) permission to reuse any figures, tables, and data sets.

Only submitted the paper to one journal at a time.

Finally, notify all the co-authors once you have submitted the paper.

Further resources

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies .

Download the ethics for authors infographic in Chinese .

Ethical guidelines for journal editors and peer reviewers .

An introduction to research integrity and selective reporting bias for journal editors and researchers.

Taylor & Francis refers editors to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and recommends all reviewers adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers .

Reporting Standards for Research Publications

• October 2010
• Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation 1(2):19-29

• Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Ian Shemilt

• Rochelle Cade

• Estud Psicolog

• P.B. Elmore

• Ralph O. Mueller
• EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS
• A G Thompson
• L Wilkinson
• Task Force Statistical Inference
• Mary J. Allen
• Wendy M. Yen
• American Educational Research Association

• J COUNS DEV

• Ann Glauser
• John Peregoy
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up