The Grey Zone between research integrity and research misconduct

Part of the Building Better Research Ecosystems series

According to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), research integrity can be understood as the framework of principles, behaviours, and systems that enable research to be conducted responsibly and in a manner that promotes confidence in its processes and outcomes. It applies to all fields of research and spans the full research lifecycle, including project conception, design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination. It further encompasses the creation of research cultures and institutional environments that support and strengthen good research practice. Viewed through this broader lens, research integrity also has implications for how researchers work with one another, including the promotion of transparency, fairness, respect, accountability, and trust within a collaborative relationship.

Many institutions, journals, and funders have developed policies designed to protect the integrity of research outputs. These systems are essential. Without them, science would struggle to maintain credibility and public trust. Yet there is another question that receives far less attention: what avenues are available when a researcher raises concerns about fairness, transparency, or accountability, but the issue falls outside traditional definitions of research misconduct?

Researchers across academia collaborate across institutions, countries, cultures, and funding arrangements. These partnerships create tremendous opportunities for innovation and impact. They also create situations where expectations, responsibilities, and contributions may be interpreted differently by different parties. When disagreements arise, institutions often focus on whether formal misconduct occurred. This is understandable. Universities and journals require evidence-based processes and must operate within defined policies.

However, the absence of a misconduct finding does not necessarily mean that all concerns have been fully addressed. This creates an uncomfortable gap. A project may be scientifically successful and a paper may be published. A funder may consider the grant completed. An institution may consider the matter closed. Yet unresolved disputes may continue to have implications for professional relationships, future collaborations, and perceptions of fairness among those involved.

The challenge is that current systems are often designed to determine whether rules were broken. They are not always designed to address concerns relating to fairness, accountability, communication, or professional conduct that fall into grey areas between policy and practice. For independent researchers, consultants, and collaborators outside traditional academic employment structures, this gap can be particularly significant. They may lack access to institutional support systems, legal resources, or formal mechanisms for resolving disputes. Institutions play an important role in ensuring that concerns are considered through processes that are fair, transparent, and consistent with principles of due process. Even where concerns do not result in a finding of misconduct, researchers may benefit from understanding how decisions were reached and having confidence that their concerns were given careful and impartial consideration.

This raises an important question for the research community: should the success of a project be measured not only by its publications and deliverables, but also by the quality of the collaborative relationships that help make those achievements possible? As international collaboration continues to expand, this question becomes increasingly relevant.

Addressing this gap may require approaches that extend beyond traditional misconduct investigations. As research collaborations increasingly involve multiple institutions, countries, sectors, and independent contributors, there may be value in developing mechanisms that can examine concerns relating to fairness, accountability, and professional conduct, even when they do not meet the threshold for formal misconduct. Such mechanisms should be sufficiently independent to inspire confidence among all parties and should remain accessible to external collaborators who may not have access to institutional grievance or support systems. Collaboration agreements may also benefit from defining how concerns will be reviewed and resolved when they fall outside existing misconduct frameworks. While no single solution will fit every situation, creating transparent and impartial pathways for addressing these concerns may help strengthen trust, accountability, and confidence in collaborative research.

The future of ethical collaboration may depend not only on preventing misconduct, but also on ensuring that concerns relating to fairness, accountability, and professional conduct receive appropriate consideration even when they do not meet the threshold for a formal misconduct finding. A commitment to research integrity requires more than identifying misconduct when it occurs. It also requires institutions to ensure that concerns are examined through processes that are transparent, impartial, and capable of holding all participants accountable for their responsibilities, regardless of seniority, role, or institutional affiliation.

That conversation is worth having.

Written by Sasha Saugh
Aquatic Veterinarian | Founder, Aquaglobal Veterinary Consulting