Designing a Study You Can Defend
A research dissemination plan establishes how findings will be communicated, to whom, and under what ethical and practical conditions. Learn what belongs in the protocol, how to plan publication and stakeholder communication, and why dissemination should not depend on whether the results are statistically significant or favorable.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Research ethics and research integrity overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Ethics asks whether research is ethically defensible, while integrity concerns whether research is conducted and represented in ways that uphold the standards and values of trustworthy research.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
An IRB or research ethics committee does more than inspect your consent form. It evaluates whether the study is ethically acceptable as a whole, including its design, risks, participant selection, consent process, privacy protections, and safeguards.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Researchers do not universally need final ethics approval before applying for funding, and some funders request approval later in the award process. What matters is that required ethics approval is obtained before the covered human-participant research begins and according to the funder's specific conditions.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Research design is not separate from research ethics. An ethics committee needs to understand how a study is designed because poor or inappropriate methods can expose participants to burdens without a reasonable prospect of producing useful knowledge.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
An ethics committee may request a change intended to protect participants that also creates a methodological problem. Learn how to identify the underlying ethical concern, explain the methodological consequence, and propose a defensible alternative.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
A delay in ethics review can threaten research tied to an outbreak, event, policy change, school term, disaster, or other closing window. Urgency matters, but it does not ordinarily replace the need for appropriate ethics review.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Not every analytical adjustment requires a new ethics review, but some changes can alter study outcomes, data use, scientific validity, or the research described in the approved protocol. The significance depends on what changes and why.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Publication usually creates substantial practical limits on withdrawing an individual's contribution because findings have already entered the scholarly record. Researchers must distinguish stopping future uses of identifiable data from attempting to reverse analyses or publications already completed.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Research risk is not limited to physical injury. Learn how to identify possible harms, distinguish their probability from their severity, and judge whether exposing participants to them can be ethically justified.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Research integrity is more than avoiding misconduct. It means conducting, communicating, reviewing, and correcting research in ways that make the work trustworthy and accountable.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Poor research practice can make a study unreliable without automatically constituting research misconduct. The distinction depends on the conduct, applicable standards, evidence, and sometimes the researcher's state of mind.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Researchers should preserve enough original data, metadata, processing history, code, and contextual records to trace reported results back to their sources. Authenticity is much easier to demonstrate when provenance survives alongside the final figure or dataset.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Plagiarism in research is not limited to copying sentences. It can involve taking another person's words, ideas, processes, results, or other intellectual contributions without giving appropriate credit.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Plagiarism can involve an idea even when none of the original wording is copied. The central issue is whether an identifiable intellectual contribution has been appropriated without appropriate credit.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Researchers are expected to reuse methods, but that does not mean methodological contributions are attribution-free. The key distinction is between using a method and claiming another researcher's distinctive process or innovation as your own.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Publishing substantially the same work twice is not always unethical. The crucial distinction is whether republication is transparent, justified, authorized, and presented as secondary publication rather than falsely appearing to be new research.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Publishing the same findings in another language can be legitimate when handled as transparent secondary publication. Translation alone does not turn previously published research into a new study.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Salami slicing occurs when one coherent body of research is fragmented into multiple minimally distinct papers rather than reported together. Multiple papers from one project are not inherently problematic; the issue is whether each paper adds enough independent scholarly value.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
A conference paper, report, or preprint may sometimes be developed into a journal article, but these forms of prior dissemination are not treated identically. What matters is how complete the earlier work was, where it appeared, what rights apply, and what the target journal permits.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Not every analysis you run must appear in the main paper, but statistical nonsignificance is not a sound reason for omission. The key question is whether the analysis is necessary to understand or evaluate the study's claims.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
A literature review can misrepresent the evidence without containing a single fabricated citation. Selectively citing supportive studies while ignoring relevant contradictory evidence can create a distorted view of a research question.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean you have done anything wrong. The key question is whether an outside interest or relationship could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, your research responsibilities and therefore needs to be disclosed.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
Financial conflicts involve monetary or economic interests, while nonfinancial conflicts can arise from professional, personal, academic, or intellectual interests. Both may matter when they intersect with a researcher’s responsibilities.
Read Guide →
Doing Research Without Compromising Ethics
A conflict of interest creates circumstances in which another interest could influence research judgment. Bias is a systematic influence or distortion in judgment or research processes, and it can occur with or without a conflict of interest.
Read Guide →
