A result looks cleaner after you remove an awkward observation. A coauthor's role hasn't been discussed. You're borrowing a paragraph from an earlier paper and planning to sort out the citation later. None of these moments arrives with a flashing warning light.
The handbook treats research integrity as part of the work itself. Build clear routines for the decisions that can become difficult when time is short and the preferred result is obvious.
Keep the evidence and explain the decisions
Document how information was collected, prepared, and analyzed. Record exclusions and changes with their reasons. A disappointing result doesn't justify altering the record to make the finding more attractive.
Distinguish a planned analysis from a later exploration. Both may be informative when they're reported honestly and interpreted within the design.
Handle participant information as agreed
Follow the determinations, approvals, permissions, and safeguards applicable to the study. Check proposed changes through the appropriate process. A convenient new use of the data isn't automatically covered by the original plan.
Discuss uncertainty with the responsible institutional office before acting on an assumption.
Agree on contribution and credit
Talk about roles and authorship early, using the standards that apply to the field and intended outlet. Revisit the discussion when contributions change. Make sure contributors have an appropriate opportunity to review the work they're taking responsibility for.
Don't leave the conversation until the manuscript is ready and everyone is tired.
Keep sources visible while drafting
Mark quotations, paraphrases, borrowed materials, and your own notes clearly. Check the applicable terms for instruments, figures, text, and other materials. Cite relevant earlier work, including your own, and examine any reuse against the outlet's requirements.
A rushed draft becomes harder to repair when you can no longer tell which wording came from where.
Make transparency responsible
Explain the methods and limitations clearly, and share permitted materials where appropriate. Transparency doesn't mean exposing private information or ignoring restrictions. State what others can access and what limits apply.
Make a small decision easier to explain later
Suppose the team discovers that a variable needs to be recoded or a passage needs a more careful source check. Record the issue, the reason for the decision, and the version affected. Don't rely on a message saying “fixed it” when the change matters to how the work is understood.
Invite questions before the decision disappears into the next draft. A collaborator may notice that the explanation is incomplete or that another document needs the same update. Clarifying it early is usually easier than reconciling conflicting accounts when the manuscript is ready.
If a question concerns a standard or institutional requirement you don't understand, consult the appropriate expert or office. Avoid treating team agreement as proof that every proposed action is permitted. Good intentions are helpful, but the useful routine is a clear record of what was decided, who is responsible for the next step, and which questions still need an authoritative answer.
Before the next project meeting, choose one area where the team is relying on an unwritten understanding. Write down the decision, responsibility, and record you'll keep. A small clarification now can prevent a much harder conversation near submission.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 84-86.
