Principles of Research Integrity

Home/Principles of Research Integrity

As a world-class comprehensive university with research activities spanning all major disciplines, the University of Hong Kong realises the vital importance of research integrity.  All members of the University must observe the highest standards of professional conduct and must comply with the following principles of research integrityin pursuing their research activities:

Load More Posts

Should you publish new articles similar to previous ones?

By |August 6th, 2016|Categories: Case Studies, Honesty, Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Mark is seen as an expert in his field of research ethics and research

University of Edinburgh School of Law: Research Misconduct

By |April 23rd, 2016|Categories: Honesty, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity, Research Misconduct|Tags: |

"Research Ethics Misconduct The SOL is committed to research of the highest integrity as defined by Universities UK. This requires conduct reflective of: Honesty: Honesty in all aspects of research, including in the presentation of

Load More Posts

CityU researcher convicted after failure to disclose interest

By |July 20th, 2016|Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

Facts The researcher was an associate professor in the Department of Asian and International Studies at the City University of Hong Kong (CityU). She was also Associate Director of the Southeast Asian Research Centre (SARC) at

Conflict of interest and suppression of legitimate results by a sponsor – a COPE case study

By |May 31st, 2016|Categories: Abuse of Data, Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (http://publicationethics.org/case/attempt-supress-legitimate-scientific-results): The journal is operated by institute A, and the editor is an employee of institute A. A manuscript was submitted late in 2014

‘Want a favourable peer review? Buy one.’

By |May 31st, 2016|Categories: Case Studies, Objectivity|Tags: , |

The following is an extract from an article ('Want a favorable peer review? Buy one') by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus which appeared on the STAT News website (21 April 2016): The EditPub site (which

R (BAT) v DOH – a landmark judgment on research integrity

By |May 24th, 2016|Categories: Abuse of Data, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Good Research Practices, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , , , |

On 19 May 2016, Mr Justice Green handed down his judgment in the English High Court case of R. (on the application of British American Tobacco UK Ltd & Others) v Secretary of State for

Conflict of interest: HKU and other policies

By |April 26th, 2016|Categories: Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity|Tags: , |

The HKU Policy on Research Integrity covers conflict of interest in the following sections: Section 1 ('Principles of Research Integrity'): In pursuing their research activities, members of the University should adhere to good research practices; and should

Load More Posts

Why is keeping original records so important?

By |November 2nd, 2016|Categories: Duty of Care, Good Research Practices, Proper Data Handling|

Data recording and protection are discussed specially in the Office of Research Integrity’s Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research. (s.6b & s. 6c) It details how hardcopy or electronic evidence should be recorded and stored

You did the research, but do you own the data?

By |November 2nd, 2016|Categories: Duty of Care, Proper Data Handling|

As a researcher, have you ever considered whether you have the ownership to the data you may have complied and based your research on? In the Office of Research Integrity’s Introduction to the Responsible Conduct

Should you accept a funding opportunity limited by conditions imposed by the sponsor?

By |August 30th, 2016|Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care, Objectivity|Tags: |

Professor Peter Miller and others apply the PERIL analysis to determine if a funding opportunity which is accompanied by conditions should be accepted. Case study: PERIL analysis of a funding opportunity limited by conditions imposed

Should you accept research funding from a tobacco company?

By |August 30th, 2016|Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care|Tags: |

Peter Miller and others apply the PERIL analysis proposed by Peter Adams to determine if research funding offered by a tobacco company should be accepted. Case study: Funding opportunity from a tobacco company A university-based

Is peer review confidentiality overridden when the author is suspected of misconduct?

By |August 29th, 2016|Categories: Accountability, Case Studies, Duty of Care, Publication-related Conduct, Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices|Tags: , , , , |

The following case study was published by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Editor A wrote to editor B, indicating that one of the reviewers of a paper submitted to Journal A contained material that

How to decide whether to accept sponsorship funding: PERIL analysis

By |August 22nd, 2016|Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Duty of Care, Good Research Practices, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

In an article published in 2007, Peter Adams proposed a decision-making framework known as 'PERIL'. Peter Miller summarises Adams' PERIL framework as follows: Purpose refers to the degree to which purposes are divergent between funder

Load More Posts

Legitimate authorship – a survey of educational researchers in Hong Kong

By |May 28th, 2016|Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: , |

Professor Bruce Macfarlane conducted research into the perceptions among educational researchers in Hong Kong of the ethics of multiple authorship (namely what constitutes legitimate authorship). In October/November 2014, a link to an online questionnaire was

What constitutes authorship – a COPE case study

By |May 25th, 2016|Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: |

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (http://publicationethics.org/case/what-constitutes-authorship):   Author X submitted a paper to another journal, and included author Y, a student in the same institute, as a courtesy. Author

References on Authorship

By |May 25th, 2016|Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: |

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published a Discussion Document titled 'What constitutes authorship?' drawing upon a variety of sources: http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf The COPE Discussion Document recognises that authorship in the legal discipline is: still

ICMJE Recommendations: Authorship Criteria

By |May 25th, 2016|Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations list 4 criteria for authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html): 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

By |May 25th, 2016|Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (Section 6), to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference, states the following: Researchers should take responsibility for their contributions to all publications, funding applications, reports and other

ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship Criteria

By |May 25th, 2016|Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

The Office of Research Integrity's Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference) states the following: The names that appear at the beginning of a paper serve

Load More Posts
Load More Posts

All researchers of the University must be committed to the principle of honesty in conducting research and in communicating research findings to the research community and the public.  Honesty is required in presenting research goals and intentions, and in reporting procedures and findings.  Such presentation and reporting must be full and fair.  Objectivity of research requires maintenance of accuracy in the collection and reporting of data.  Conclusions must be based on verifiable facts, and researchers should be impartial and be as transparent as possible (notwithstanding mindful of the secrecy requirement in filing of patents and know-hows) in the handling of data.  Research findings should be made accessible to the research community for verification.  All researchers have a duty of care to the human research participants, the animals, and the environment under study.  They must be fair in giving credit for the work of other researchers who participate in the research.  They have a responsibility in supervising and nurturing research students and early-career researchers, who will be researchers of the next generation.  Positions of seniority or responsibility should never be abused so as to put pressure on colleagues or research students, for example, to forgo their right to proper acknowledgement of their contribution to the research or publication in question, or to add persons who have not significantly and/or substantially contributed to the research onto the authorship list.

In pursuing their research activities, members of the University should adhere to good research practices; should not engage in research misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication, falsification or unauthorised use of data, improper ascription of authorship, non-disclosure of potential conflict of interestetc. (see Section 3 below). Relevant ethical approval must be obtained before the commencement of data collection.  Misconduct or alleged misconduct in research will be dealt with in accordance with the Procedures for Dealing with Alleged Staff Misconduct in Research.