Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Professional Culture and Governance

On this Page

Culture of Integrity in the Research Environment – Institutional Responsibilities

Mentor and Supervisor Responsibilities

Team Science and Collaborations

Responsible and Rigorous Peer Review

Questionable or Detrimental Research Practices (To avoid)

References

Professional Standards of Scientific Research

Professional Culture and Governance

Culture of Integrity in the Research Environment – Institutional Responsibilities

  • Clear codes of conduct – Establish and enforce clear, accessible codes of conduct for research and scientific integrity.
  • Responsible and ethical conduct of research (RECR) training – Provide ongoing training in responsible and ethical conduct of research for researchers and managers at all levels, including trainees. Establish and communicate clear expectations regarding roles and responsibilities and ethical conduct.
  • Reward systems aligned with integrity – Align incentives for individual reward, promotion, and recognition with quality, rigor, and integrity, not just productivity or output.
  • Confidential reporting and independent misconduct investigation processes – Provide accessible, confidential mechanisms for reporting concerns or misconduct. Ensure investigations are impartial, timely, and free from conflicts of interest.
  • Protection from retaliation – Foster environments where concerns can be raised without fear of retaliation. Protect individuals who report concerns.
  • Transparency in corrective actions – Communicate outcomes of misconduct findings and corrective actions to demonstrate responsiveness while protecting confidentiality of the individuals involved.
  • Addressing harassment and bullying – Actively prevent, report, and address harassment and bullying in research environments. Research cultures that are permissive of sexual harassment, bullying, and abuse of power tend to display the same organizational features that are associated with poor research integrity climates: weak accountability, unfairness, fear of retaliation, poor supervision, and tolerance of rule-breaking by high-status people.
  • NOAA’s Code of Scientific Conduct – Review this core element of NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy.
  • NOAA’s Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Program – Review NOAA’s resources for preventing and addressing issues of workplace violence and harassment.

Mentor and Supervisor Responsibilities

  • Model ethical research behavior – Explicitly model good practices for research design, data management, analysis, authorship, and communication. Demonstrate honesty, objectivity, and transparency in all research activities. 
  • Clear expectations for responsible conduct – Communicate explicit expectations regarding research integrity, authorship, data management, and peer review. Incorporate these expectations into onboarding, lab policies, and project planning. 
  • Structured training and ongoing guidance – Ensure team members complete responsible and ethical conduct of research (RECR) training and reinforce training principles through ongoing discussions; integrate integrity topics into routine mentoring (e.g., team meetings, project reviews). 
  • Open communication and psychological safety – Create an environment where team members can ask questions, raise concerns, and admit mistakes without fear. 
  • Research conduct oversight – Actively oversee research activities, including data collection analysis and reporting. Address questionable practices promptly and constructively. 
  • Responsible publication and communication practices – Guide team members in selecting reputable journals and avoiding predatory publishing practices. Ensure accurate, complete, and responsible reporting of results. Identify and assist in managing conflicts of interest and commitment.
  • Correct errors and promote continuous improvement – Encourage prompt correction of errors in data, analysis, or publications. Treat mistakes as opportunities for learning and improvement. 
  • Ensure accountability – Hold all team members accountable for ethical conduct. Protect team members from retaliation when raising concerns. 
  • NOAA specific guidance – See the NOAA Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management.

Team Science and Collaborations

  • Clear role definitions – Define and document roles and responsibilities for all team members.
  • Multi-institutional governance – Coordinate governance structures across institutions to ensure consistency and compliance with institutional and funder requirements. Consider developing an overarching project management plan that incorporates this governance structure and practices for routine communications. 
  • Data sharing agreements – Develop formal agreements governing data management covering the full data lifecycle for scientific data, including data access, use, and ownership. Include plans for open access and long-term curation in alignment with funder and institutional policies. 
  • Interdisciplinary communication – Foster clear communication across disciplines and ensure shared understanding of goals and methods.
  • Conflict resolution mechanisms – Establish processes to resolve disputes constructively and transparently. 
  • International collaboration considerations – Comply with applicable laws, regulations, and institutional and funder requirements for international collaborations. 

Responsible and Rigorous Peer Review

  • Integrity of the peer review process – Peer review is a core mechanism for ensuring research integrity; is central to evaluating the validity, significance, and originality of research; and reinforces community standards of rigor, quality, and transparency in research. The peer review process also helps detect errors, weaknesses, and questionable practices. 
  • Objectivity and impartiality – Evaluate work based on scientific or technical merit, free from personal bias. 
  • Constructive critique – Provide fair, evidence-based, and constructive feedback. Align review comments with provided review criteria. Avoid personal commentary or dismissive or adversarial statements.
  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest – Disclose all relevant conflicts of interest (e.g., financial, institutional, professional relationships) and recuse oneself from the peer review when appropriate. 
  • Confidential handling – Treat research manuscripts and proposals and their contents as confidential. Follow institutional/requester instructions for handling and disposal of electronic and hardcopy documents at the conclusion of the review. 
  • Avoiding misuse of privileged information – Use information obtained through the review only for review purposes. Treat research manuscript information as strictly confidential until published; treat proposal information as confidential indefinitely. 
  • AI is not a peer reviewer – Refrain from using AI tools to generate a review of a manuscript or proposal. Individuals are selected to serve as peer reviewers because of their subject matter expertise. AI tools are not subject matter experts and cannot be a substitute for peer review. Further, entering confidential or proprietary information into public tools may violate institutional or funder privacy and confidentiality requirements.
  • Institutional responsibilities – Organizations must set clear peer review policies and standards, provide guidance and training to reviewers, manage conflicts of interest, and promote transparency and accountability.

Questionable or Detrimental Research Practices (To avoid)

  • Maintaining vague, inconsistent, or unenforced institutional research integrity and research misconduct policies. 
  • Normalizing questionable research practices. 
  • Creating barriers to reporting research misconduct, concealing research misconduct, or failing to implement corrective measures when research misconduct has occurred. 
  • Penalizing or marginalizing whistleblowers. 
  • Assuming research team members and trainees have received sufficient training in responsible conduct of research somewhere else. 
  • Sharing data from team projects without clear agreements or expectations established. 
  • Entering confidential or proprietary information into public AI tools, which is a violation of publisher, institutional, and funder privacy and confidentiality rules.
  • Using information obtained from peer review participation for personal or competitive advantage.

References

Quick Links

NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy

Learn more about NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy

Guidance on Scientific and Professional Activities

Understand the guidelines for NOAA employees

Submitting Allegations

Find information about how to submit an allegation

Annual NOAA Scientific Integrity Reports

Find our annual reports here