03 · What You Need to Know
Common Practice and Responsible Practice Are Not the Same Thing
A descriptive claim does not establish a normative standard
"Everyone does it" is fundamentally a claim about prevalence. Even if true, it tells you how researchers allegedly behave. It does not tell you how researchers ought to behave.
Research integrity standards come from relevant methodological principles, laws and regulations, institutional policies, ethics or regulatory approvals, funder conditions, professional codes, journal requirements, and broader norms of responsible research conduct.
A widespread practice can be defensible. It can also be methodologically weak, ethically questionable, outdated, or explicitly prohibited.
Common practice
Something researchers frequently do within a laboratory, department, discipline, or other research setting.
Responsible practice
Something that can be justified under the methodological, ethical, professional, and policy standards relevant to the research.
Sometimes those categories overlap. Sometimes they do not.
The claim itself may be worth checking
"Everyone" is doing rather heroic statistical work in this sentence.
A senior researcher may genuinely believe a practice is universal because it is normal within one laboratory, research network, or disciplinary tradition. Other researchers in the field may use different procedures. Standards may also have changed since the senior researcher was trained.
Before accepting the claim, ask what "everyone" actually means. Is the practice described in methodological guidance? Is it permitted by the journal? Is it consistent with the approved protocol? Do professional standards endorse it? Would researchers in the field recognize it as accepted practice if described accurately?
The answer should come from evidence rather than seniority.
Some practices are acceptable precisely because they are transparent
A senior researcher may recommend a practice that initially sounds questionable but becomes defensible once its rationale and reporting are understood.
For example, researchers may legitimately modify an analysis after discovering that a planned method is unsuitable. The change itself is not automatically improper. The important questions include why the change was made and whether the research accurately distinguishes planned from later analytical decisions where that distinction matters.
Similarly, observations can be excluded for legitimate reasons, images can be adjusted within accepted standards, protocols can sometimes be amended through appropriate procedures, and exploratory analyses can be valuable.
The integrity problem often lies not in the existence of a research decision but in whether the decision has a defensible basis and is represented honestly.
Outcome-dependent justification deserves closer scrutiny
One useful test is to ask whether the same practice would be recommended if it produced an unfavorable result.
Suppose a senior researcher tells you to remove four observations because they are "obvious outliers." If the observations satisfy a predetermined, defensible exclusion rule, the recommendation may be entirely appropriate.
If the four observations became "outliers" only after someone noticed that removing them makes the result statistically significant, the justification deserves much closer examination.
The same principle can apply to subgroup selection, variable transformations, model choices, qualitative quotation selection, image processing, outcome reporting, and other decisions.
Accepted practice still has to be represented accurately
Even when a methodological choice is common, the research record should not misrepresent what happened.
If an analysis was chosen after examining the data, reporting it as though it had been specified before data analysis can create a misleading account of the research process. If observations were excluded, readers may need to know the relevant criteria. If a protocol changed, the applicable approval and reporting requirements should be followed.
The question is not merely "Can researchers do this?" It is also "Can we accurately describe what we did and why?"
“Everyone does it” can normalize questionable research practices
Research communities can develop practices that are widespread without being ideal.
The National Academies uses the concept of detrimental research practices for behaviors outside fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism that can damage the research enterprise. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity likewise identifies unacceptable practices extending beyond the narrowest definitions of misconduct.
This matters because questionable or detrimental research practice is not rendered acceptable merely by falling short of formal misconduct.
A local research culture can normalize poor habits. Repetition may explain why a practice persists without providing a methodological defense of it.
You do not need to prove misconduct before asking questions
Junior researchers sometimes remain silent because they cannot determine whether a questionable practice technically constitutes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or another formal violation.
That threshold is unnecessary for asking for a rationale.
You can ask why observations are being removed, why an analysis is being changed, why an author is being added, why a limitation is being omitted, or why an approved procedure is not being followed without accusing anyone of misconduct.
Likewise, you can decline to participate in something you cannot responsibly defend without first proving that someone else has committed formal research misconduct.
Power asymmetry changes how you may need to respond
The advice "just challenge them" ignores how research organizations actually work.
A doctoral student may depend on a supervisor for progression, funding, access to data, authorship, and recommendation letters. A postdoctoral researcher may depend on a principal investigator for employment and visa sponsorship. A junior faculty member may be challenging someone who controls laboratory resources or promotion opportunities.
Responsible action does not always require direct confrontation.
If raising the issue openly feels unsafe, or if you have already raised it and pressure continues, seek confidential advice from someone sufficiently independent of the immediate power relationship. Depending on the institution, possibilities may include a research integrity office, ethics office, ombuds service, graduate school, compliance office, department leadership, or another designated resource.
Institutional structures differ, so identify the channels actually available where you work.
Ask for the standard, not merely another opinion
If a disagreement becomes "my opinion versus the professor's opinion," seniority tends to win.
Move the discussion toward an external standard.
If the question concerns participant procedures, examine the approved protocol and relevant ethics requirements. If it concerns authorship, check the criteria used by the journal, discipline, or institution. If it concerns statistics, consult appropriate methodological guidance or an independent expert. If it concerns data management, check institutional and funder requirements.
This can depersonalize the disagreement. The question becomes "What does the applicable standard require?" rather than "Which of us knows more?"
Documentation matters when pressure becomes consequential
Routine scholarly disagreements do not require building a dossier on your colleagues. Persistent pressure concerning a consequential integrity issue is different.
Preserve relevant research records and communications. Where important decisions are made verbally, it may be appropriate to create an accurate contemporaneous record of the decision and rationale through normal project documentation.
Keep documentation factual. Record what was proposed, what evidence or policy was discussed, what decision was made, and what action followed. Avoid speculative statements about motives that you cannot establish.
The purpose is to preserve the research trail, not to produce a dramatic narrative.
Do not secretly “fix” the research behind the senior researcher’s back
If you believe a requested practice is wrong, covertly changing the data or analysis to what you think is correct can create a second problem.
Research records should remain transparent. Preserve original files, document legitimate corrections, and use appropriate review or escalation processes when disagreement cannot be resolved.
Do not delete observations, restore excluded data, alter authorship, modify figures, or rewrite records secretly simply because you believe your preferred version is more ethical.
Integrity does not become easier when competing versions of the research are being edited in the shadows.
A senior researcher can also be mistaken without acting unethically
Not every bad recommendation reflects corruption or misconduct.
A senior researcher may be working from outdated guidance, misunderstanding a new method, applying conventions from another discipline, or simply making an ordinary error in judgment. Asking for the rationale and checking authoritative standards gives everyone an opportunity to correct the decision without unnecessarily escalating a methodological disagreement into an accusation.
The objective is reliable research, not catching senior colleagues being wrong.
But persistent pressure changes the situation
The concern becomes more serious when a senior researcher continues to demand an indefensible practice after the relevant problem has been clearly identified.
Suppose you show that an exclusion violates the analysis plan, provide evidence that the observations are valid, and explain that removing them solely creates the desired result. If the response remains "Do it anyway, everyone does," the issue is no longer simply an unexplored methodological disagreement.
At that point, you may need to refuse participation, document the concern, seek independent advice, or escalate through the appropriate process.
The practical steps overlap with what to do when a collaborator asks you to do something methodologically or ethically questionable, but power asymmetry makes independent support particularly important.
Watch Out
Do not allow a senior researcher to use their authority as the evidence that a practice is acceptable. Expertise can support an argument, but status is not a substitute for methodological justification, ethics approval, institutional policy, or accurate reporting.
Your responsibility still matters when someone senior gives the instruction
Being junior can constrain your options, but it does not transform an improper act into responsible conduct.
If you knowingly fabricate observations, manipulate results, plagiarize work, or otherwise misrepresent research, the fact that a senior researcher suggested or ordered the action does not automatically eliminate your own responsibility.
At the same time, responsibility should be assessed fairly. Coercion, authority, access to information, ability to refuse, and the conduct of the senior researcher all matter when evaluating what happened.
The broader principle remains that responsibility within research teams differs according to role, conduct, knowledge, and authority.
