Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 326–350 of 497 results
Wanting publications, promotion, tenure, grants, or professional recognition does not automatically create a conflict of interest. Career interests become more concerning when a specific professional stake competes with a research responsibility or impartial decision.
Read Guide →A professional relationship or rivalry can create a conflict when it gives you a meaningful stake in another person's success, failure, or evaluation. Ordinary acquaintance or working in the same field is not automatically disqualifying.
Read Guide →Industry sponsorship deserves attention because empirical research has found associations between sponsorship and sponsor-favorable results or conclusions in some fields. That evidence supports greater scrutiny, not automatic rejection of every industry-funded study.
Read Guide →A sponsor may sometimes review a manuscript before submission or publication, particularly to identify confidential information, factual issues, or patentable inventions. The crucial boundary is whether the sponsor can comment or can actually control what researchers are permitted to publish.
Read Guide →There is no universal rule that the principal investigator must legally own sponsor-funded research data. What matters scientifically is whether responsible investigators have sufficient access and authority to verify the data, scrutinize analyses, fulfill applicable obligations, and report the research independently.
Read Guide →Some conflicts of interest can be managed through disclosure, independent oversight, role restrictions, or other safeguards. Others are too direct or consequential to manage credibly and require recusal, divestment, severing a relationship, or removal from part of the research.
Read Guide →An undeclared conflict discovered after a study is complete should be reported promptly rather than quietly added to future disclosures. The next step is to determine what should have been disclosed, whether the conflict affected the research, and what correction, retrospective review, management, or mitigation is required.
Read Guide →Research records are more than the data reported in a paper. Learn what evidence researchers should preserve and why trustworthy records are essential for reconstructing, verifying, and defending research.
Read Guide →Research data are often part of the research record, but the two terms are not interchangeable. The distinction matters for preservation, sharing, documentation, and research integrity.
Read Guide →Two researchers may document the same event differently without either account being deliberately misleading. Learn how to investigate conflicting research records, evaluate the available evidence, document reconciliation, and recognize when a discrepancy requires formal review.
Read Guide →Completing or publishing a study does not necessarily end the obligation to preserve its supporting evidence. Understand how responsibility is distributed among researchers, institutions, and record custodians, and what must remain available for future verification.
Read Guide →Academic paper mills are organized services associated with producing or distributing fraudulent scholarly manuscripts and manipulating publication processes. Understand how these operations differ from legitimate research assistance, why their activities threaten the scholarly record, and what researchers should examine before trusting a commercial publication service.
Read Guide →Fraudulent research services may resemble legitimate editing, data collection, statistical consulting, or publication support. Learn how to evaluate providers, recognize suspicious promises, verify research provenance, and distinguish credible evidence of wrongdoing from warning signs that merely justify further investigation.
Read Guide →Discovering that a collaborator used a questionable research service does not automatically establish misconduct, but it may create serious questions about data authenticity, authorship, confidentiality, or publication integrity. Learn how to verify the service's involvement, protect evidence, assess the affected research, and respond proportionately.
Read Guide →Discovering that a paid research service crossed an ethical boundary can create difficult questions about contracts, authorship, data integrity, and publication responsibilities. Learn how to preserve evidence, stop further misrepresentation, assess affected work, and seek appropriate corrective action without assuming that every mistake constitutes formal misconduct.
Read Guide →Researchers may sometimes have legitimate reasons to restrict methodological details that could enable serious harm. However, withholding information can undermine reproducibility and scientific scrutiny. Learn when restrictions may be justified, which alternatives can preserve accountability, and how to distinguish responsible disclosure from inadequate methodological reporting.
Read Guide →Publication marks an important stage in the research process, but it does not necessarily end a researcher's responsibilities. Researchers may retain obligations concerning the accuracy of published findings, preservation of research records, correction of consequential errors, cooperation with legitimate inquiries, and responsible communication of limitations. Understand which responsibilities continue, how their scope varies, and why accountability should not be confused with unlimited responsibility for every future use of scientific knowledge.
Read Guide →DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, ISSNs, and ORCID iDs all identify different things. Learn which identifiers help you find, verify, distinguish, and manage research sources without treating them as interchangeable.
Read Guide →AI-assisted research uses artificial intelligence to support one or more research tasks while researchers retain responsibility for the study and its scholarly decisions. The important question is not merely whether AI was used, but what it assisted with and how its contribution was evaluated.
Read Guide →Using generative AI does not automatically make research less scientific or rigorous. Rigor depends on how the research question, evidence, methods, validation, interpretation, transparency, and conclusions are handled.
Read Guide →Generative AI can potentially improve research quality when it helps researchers detect errors, consider alternatives, test ideas, improve reproducibility, or communicate evidence more clearly. Faster production and more polished writing, however, should not be mistaken for better research.
Read Guide →Generative AI can perform useful forms of scientific reasoning, but its reliability varies by model, task, evidence, and context. Researchers should evaluate the reasoning chain and underlying evidence rather than assume that a persuasive conclusion is scientifically sound.
Read Guide →AI hallucinations can be difficult to detect because language models are capable of producing fluent, coherent, contextually appropriate language even when individual claims are wrong. For researchers, confidence, detail, and academic tone should never substitute for evidence.
Read Guide →Researchers remain responsible for factual claims they use, but that does not mean every AI-generated sentence requires identical verification effort. The sensible approach is risk-based: verify consequential claims rigorously and do not publish unsupported claims merely because AI supplied them.
Read Guide →A plausible scientific claim from AI is not evidence. Verify it by defining exactly what the claim asserts, locating appropriate scientific sources, and checking whether the evidence actually supports that specific conclusion.
Read Guide →