Leadership as the cornerstone of Research Integrity
Guest post by Matthew Campbell
This post originally appeared on the Epigeum blog here.
Professor Matthew Campbell explores how research integrity is shaped through everyday leadership decisions and highlights three key leadership levers that strengthen and influence research culture.
What shapes research integrity more: formal rules or everyday leadership decisions?
When most people hear “research integrity”, they often think of extreme cases such as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. In reality, the integrity of a research environment is built, or eroded, through far more ordinary moments: how decisions are made under pressure, how teams communicate uncertainty, how credit is allocated, and how concerns are handled when the answers are uncomfortable.
In the UK, research integrity is framed with the context of honest, rigorous, transparent, respectful and accountable practice. For experienced researchers, that means research integrity is not simply a set of rules to comply with. It is a leadership practice. The practical implication is straightforward: experienced researchers, research leaders shape culture whether they intend to or not. The question is whether we do so deliberately.
Below are three leadership “levers” that reliably influence research culture, each translated into practical actions emphasised within Research Integrity for Experienced Researchers (part of the Research Integrity Collection, an online course designed specifically for those leading people, projects, and partnerships across the research lifecycle.
1) Make mentoring a ‘system’
Mentoring is sometimes treated as discretionary – something you do when time allows. In reality, it is one of the most effective mechanisms for preventing problems before they start, because it shapes how early-career researchers learn what “good” looks like when no one is watching. Mentoring should be treated as a formal, organisation-wide system-embedded tool in workloading, capability development, and performance expectations, not an informal, optional act of individual goodwill.
Practical strategies experienced researchers can implement immediately include:
Set expectations early and explicitly. Don’t assume shared understanding of standards for record-keeping, version control, lab notebooks, preregistration, or authorship criteria. If it matters, write it down.
Normalise uncertainty and questioning. Make it safe to say “I don’t know” and “I think we should check”. These statements are not weakness; they are markers of rigour.
Mentor for judgement, not just technique. The most consequential decisions in research are rarely technical. They are ethical and contextual (trade-offs, borderline cases, conflicts, and incentives).
A key point here is that mentoring is not only for large research groups. Leadership can, and should, also be exercised through less formal mentoring and professional development, particularly in smaller teams and disciplines where leadership is less hierarchical.
2) Use openness to reduce friction and prevent disputes
Openness is often framed as a principle. Experienced researchers know it is also a management and leadership tool.
Many integrity issues emerge from misaligned assumptions: who owns which tasks, what counts as “finished”, what quality threshold is acceptable, or who will be included on outputs. Openness reduces ambiguity, and ambiguity is where disputes thrive.
Try embedding these habits into your normal routines:
Run “pre-mortems” before projects begin. Ask: where could this collaboration fail (data access, roles, timelines, authorship, IP, approvals), and what will we do if it does?
Make decisions traceable. Ensure key decisions (method changes, exclusions, analytic choices, authorship revisions) are recorded, dated, and accessible.
Share learning not just success. Leaders who disclose setbacks and limitations set a tone that prioritises integrity over image; if you’re open and honest with you team, they’re more likely to be open and honest with you.
This is not about performative transparency. It is about creating a workflow in which doing the right thing is the path of least resistance.
3) Model ethical practice through communication, feedback, and what you reward
Culture is shaped less by what leaders say and more by what they do, and especially what they reward, tolerate, and ignore.
Responsible leadership is strongly tied to communication behaviours: active listening, timely feedback, fairness, and respect, particularly when the message is difficult.
Concrete actions include:
Give feedback that protects standards without humiliating people. “This needs improving” can coexist with psychological safety if the critique is specific, constructive, and focused on the work.
Address poor practice early. Small deviations become “how we do things here” if leaders look away.
Be explicit about fairness and credit. Authorship and contribution decisions should be predictable, evidenced, and revisited when scope changes not negotiated at the end when incentives are highest.
Respond well when concerns are raised. The first response matters. If people learn that raising an issue triggers defensiveness or retaliation, you will not hear about problems until they become crises.
In short: leaders are always teaching. The question is what lesson the team is absorbing?
Research Integrity for Experienced Researchers is built around a practical premise: experienced researchers do not need generic reminders that integrity matters. Instead they need structured, scenario-led support to apply principles in real leadership contexts. The course focuses on the responsibilities of experienced researchers across professional behaviours, the research process, and collaboration, using interactive exercises that translate values into decisions, conversations, and repeatable habits.
For institutions, the benefits are equally tangible: fewer avoidable disputes, stronger supervisory practice, better team communication, and a clearer, more consistent research culture driven from the top and bottom and experienced by everyone. If research integrity is the outcome, leadership is the mechanism. Research Integrity for Experienced Researchers is designed to help experienced researchers strengthen that mechanism, deliberately, consistently, and in ways that teams can feel day to day.
Research Integrity for Experienced Researchers - part of the Research Integrity Collection - is coming out soon. Request a free trial to explore the course for your institution.