In this conversation, Allegra Torres, Research Integrity and Ethics Manager, and Biz Turnell, Senior Research Integrity and Ethics Specialist, discuss the most common research integrity issues they encounter in the publishing process and share practical guidance for authors. From navigating authorship and attribution to strengthening transparency, data sharing, and reproducibility, they offer clear insights and resources to help researchers publish responsibly and confidently.
Q: What does “research integrity” mean for researchers, and why does it matter when publishing with AIP Publishing?
A: Publishers depend on researchers and their institutions to ensure that research is reproducible, conducted and reported accurately, and grounded in sound scientific principles. AIPP is another link in the chain, shoring up trust in scientific research by providing an extra layer of scrutiny over the work. It’s our job to provide ethical oversight of the publishing process and promote trust in review processes. Hence, our team is the “Research Integrity and Publication Ethics” office! We operate as a centralized hub for resources and functions, overseeing in-depth integrity investigations and working hard to continuously improve AIPP processes.
We recognize the trust the scholarly community places in peer review, both to enhance the quality of published research and to detect upstream integrity issues that could otherwise lead to the dissemination of unreliable science. AIPP makes sure that trust is well placed, collaborating with editorial teams to prevent bias, uphold ethical publishing practices, and cultivate a qualified and engaged pool of peer reviewers. Every AIPP contributor is trained to perform a high-quality review, and we promote co-reviewing as a valuable training tool for early career researchers.
The result? An effective peer review process that is as rigorous and objective as possible.
We also don’t shy away from correcting the scientific record when necessary, which is why we encourage post-publication review. Peer review is the best defense against fraud and unreliable science, but that doesn’t mean it’s an infallible process. Honest mistakes happen! AIPP works with authors to address flaws in their published work, issuing errata or retractions when appropriate. In some cases, the Research Integrity team may be asked to conduct a more comprehensive investigation to determine whether deliberate misconduct compromised the peer review process or the content of the manuscript.
Q: What are some common integrity issues that can slow down publication?
A (Allegra): Authorship and attribution are the usual culprits. This typically happens during revision or even after acceptance, when authors want to add or remove names or reorder the byline. With the increasing prevalence of authorship misconduct, publishers like AIPP are implementing stricter academic authorship policies to verify the legitimacy of attribution changes.
For example, authors may need to provide supporting documentation with proof of contribution or get corroboration from their institution to verify the change. These materials are then reviewed and approved by the editorial team, which can extend the publication process. If there isn’t sufficient justification or evidence validating the change, the request may be denied and, in some cases, investigated by the Research Integrity team.
Q: What can authors do to avoid them?
A (Allegra): To prevent delays, the corresponding author should verify with all coauthors and contributors that the author list is complete, and the byline is finalized before submission. AIPP uses the authorship criteria set by the Internation Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and encourages authors to consult these guidelines when preparing their manuscript and determining formal attribution.
Contributors who do not qualify for authorship should be recognized in the Acknowledgments section, with authors confirming that these individuals agree to being listed to prevent post-publication authorship disputes. Although the corresponding author is ultimately responsible for the submitted manuscript, all authors are equally accountable for accurately reflecting everyone’s contributions. Manuscripts submitted to AIPP must include an Author Contribution section, detailing each author’s roles according to the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
Finally, authors should always obtain permission to publish work derived from research involving other collaborators, such as research groups or thesis advisors, and consult their institution’s policies on data or research ownership.
Q: What role does transparency and reproducibility play in today’s publishing landscape?
A (Biz): Transparency and reproducibility are hugely important. Open research practices drive scientific innovation by democratizing resource and knowledge sharing while also promoting accountability and research integrity.
Sharing data, such as protocols, software, code, datasets, and other research products, is one of the most effective ways researchers can improve the transparency, rigor, and persistence of their work. Data deposition not only increases the visibility of published research but also enables secondary analyses, such as the meta-studies that are becoming increasingly common in the age of big data.
More publishers than ever are requiring data sharing for specific journals or data types, such as AIPP’s APL Computational Physics and APL Machine Learning. Funder-mandated data sharing is also gaining traction, as exemplified by the Nelson memo instructing that federally funded data be shared openly.
Despite community-wide recognition of the value of data sharing, comprehensive datasets are still not deposited for many publications, and most requests for access to ostensibly accessible data remain unsuccessful. However, even in the absence of mandated data sharing, researchers can benefit themselves and their communities by making their data available.
With so many repositories to choose from, researchers can consult resources such as the Registry of Research Data Repositories (re3data) and PLOS for practical guidance on selecting trusted options that meet their field’s standards and institutional or funder requirements. Given the rapidly growing volume and complexity of data, it is also critical to deposit digital assets in a way that is FAIR: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reuseable.
Q: Aside from digital data deposition, how else can researchers promote transparency and reproducibility in their work?
A (Biz): Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) allow researchers to specify exactly which core facilities, software, instrumentation, or other resources were used in a study.
Innovations in publication models, such as Registered Reports, and in peer review models, such as transparent and post-publication review, are gaining popularity across scientific disciplines. These approaches promise to further enhance transparency in scientific research and publishing.
Q: Are there any tools, resources, or checklists you recommend for researchers who want to make sure they’re publishing responsibly?
A (Biz): The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a fantastic resource for researchers who are interested in ethical publishing! The website offers a variety of valuable tools, including searchable guidance through webinars, reports, flowcharts, and case studies; topical discussions on current issues in publication ethics; and an eLearning series covering common challenges such as reviewer misconduct, conflicts of interest, and authorship.
Other useful sites and resources include:
Publication Ethics and Standards
- Council of Science Editors (CSE)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
- World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
- European Association of Science Editors (EASE)
Open Science Principles
- Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines
- UNESCO Recommendations for Open Science
- Center for Open Science (COS)
Data Sharing and Repositories
Research Integrity
- U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
- UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO)
- National Academies’ Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust