This means conducting scientific research in a way that guarantees its high quality, prevents abuses and allows us to have confidence in the methods used and research results. The aim of conducting research is to systematically acquire knowledge, leading to further development of science and improving the quality of education, therefore the research conducted must be reliable and conducted in a transparent manner. Conducting research reliably requires that each person involved in it adheres to high standards of scientific, ethical, organizational and legal practices applicable in a given field. This applies to all stages of research, from collecting and storing data to presenting and publishing the final results. Reliable research is a reflection of not only the research project or publication itself, but also a given institution, its scientists and the broader research community.

Principles of research integrity:
  1. Reliability - ensuring the highest possible quality of research through proper conceptualization, proper conduct and management, selection of appropriate methodology, correct data analysis.
  2. Integrity – in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair and objective manner.
  3. Respect – for colleagues, participants in scientific research, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
  4. Responsibility - for research throughout the entire research process, from the idea to the publication of results, for its organization and management, training, supervision and mentoring, and the impact of research on society.
Good practices in the field of research integrity:
  1. Creating a research environment based on mutual respect and promoting values such as justice, diversity and inclusion. Research institutions and organizations should be free from excessive pressure on scientists, allowing them to work independently and in accordance with the principles of good research practice, determined by clear procedures. Systemically supporting infrastructure for the generation, management and protection of data and research materials in all their forms that are essential for reproducibility, traceability and accountability.
  2. Providing researchers with training in research design, methodology, analysis, dissemination and communication, as well as research ethics and integrity at all career levels. Experienced scientists should be mentors and guardians for young scientists.
  3. Researchers should design, conduct, analyze and document research in a careful, transparent and thoughtful way. If research is carried out under a grant, scientists are obliged to use the funds appropriately and consciously, share their results openly and transparently, and respect data confidentiality or other arrangements when legally required. Results are reported in accordance with accepted standards and enable verification or replication.
  4. Researchers, when conducting research with participants and research objects (human, animal, cultural, biological, environmental or physical), must comply with legal provisions and ethical principles. It is also their responsibility to recognize potential harm and risks associated with research and its application and to prevent/mitigate possible negative effects.
  5. Scientists and research institutions ensure that all data, metadata and other research materials are appropriately managed and protected for an appropriate and clearly defined retention period. Access to data should be as open as possible and as closed as necessary, consistent with the FAIR principles. Information about access to and consent to the use of data and metadata should be provided in a transparent manner.
  6. All partners participating in the cooperation are responsible for the reliability of the research and its results. They agree and monitor standards regarding research integrity, the laws and regulations that will apply, the protection of collaborators' intellectual property, and procedures for dealing with conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.
  7. The authors formally agree to the order of authorship, recognizing that authorship itself is based on: significant contribution to the research design, collection of relevant data, their analysis and/or interpretation; development and/or critical review of publications; approval of the final version of the publication; and agreement to be responsible for the content of the publication, unless otherwise specified in the publication.
  8. Scientists responsibly approach issues related to involvement and responsibility towards the scientific community, i.e. reviewing, verification and evaluation, and their work is recognized and rewarded by research institutions. The review and evaluation of applications for publication, funding, appointment, promotion or award should be done in a transparent and reasonable manner.
Research integrity violations:
 
  • poor research planning, both in terms of the methodology used and the equipment used and the ways of its use
  • biased data analysis, omitting data that is inconvenient for the tested hypothesis, selecting boundary conditions for disturbances that are favorable from the point of view of defending the tested hypothesis, and other such manipulations, as well as formulating post hoc hypotheses that fit the obtained data
  • fabrication, i.e. inventing research results and perpetuating them as if they were true
  • falsification, i.e. manipulation of research materials, equipment or procedures or unjustified change, omission or concealment of data or results
  • inadequate storage and failure to provide primary data
  • misuse of statistics, e.g. by incorrectly implying statistical significance, or manipulating them through biased selection of sample, time, territory, etc.
  • not disclosing data or research results without justification
 
  • manipulating the authorship of publications or discrediting other scientists’ contribution to publications
  • plagiarism, i.e. using the work and ideas of other people without proper reference to the original source, which leads to a violation of the rights of the original author or authors to the results of their intellectual work
  • self-plagiarism, i.e. re-publishing extensive fragments of one's own previous publications, including translations of these publications, without appropriate reference or citation to the original publication
  • concealing the use of artificial intelligence or automated tools to create content or produce publications
  • artificial multiplication of publications, giving a false sense of richness of results and replication of results, by fragmenting research results or creating publications based on the same set of data, using the same sample, methodology, hypotheses
  • carelessness about the final form and quality of the publication, refusal to proofread the publication
  • failure to report the withdrawal of the publication by the publishing house or unjustified suspension of publication by the publishing house/financing institution
  • unnecessarily expanding the bibliography of a given work or study in order to satisfy editors, reviewers or collaborators or in order to manipulate bibliographic data
  • selectively choice of quotes to confirm findings
  • selective or inaccurate citation
  • conducting an unreliable review process, colluding between reviewers and authors to review each other's publications
  • establishing, supporting or intentionally using journals, publishers or events that undermine the quality of research or prevent its control (so-called predatory journals)
 
  • financial embezzlement related to failure to report a conflict of interest or abuse of competences
  • incorrect use of funds allocated for the implementation of the research project
 
  • personal misunderstandings between members of the research group or in the student-master relationship
  • abuse of authority or official authority in order to persuade other people to violate research integrity, including abuse and intimidation
  • delaying or inappropriately obstructing the work of other researchers
  • maliciously accusing a scientist of research dishonesty or other types of violations
  • misrepresenting research achievements, data or involvement in research
  • exaggerated emphasis on the importance of research results and the possibility of their application in practice
  • ignoring alleged breaches of research integrity by others or concealing institutions' inappropriate responses to incidents of research misconduct or other types of breaches
 
  • interference that threatens the independence of the research process, impartial reporting or presentation of research results in a way that leads to their distortion
  • inappropriately responding to or ignoring alleged breaches of research integrity or other types of violations during the evaluation of research implementation