Resources · Codes and regulations
The codes behind the rulings.
When a question of research conduct arises, journals, funders and institutions reach for a small set of reference documents. These are the ones that matter, and what each covers.
TIFR Guidelines on Academic EthicsInstitutional · India
The standard that applies directly to every member of NCBS, covering the conduct of research, publication practice and the reporting of misconduct.
What it covers. The Guidelines address the conduct of research, training, publications, confidentiality, science management, conflict of interest, and the mechanism for reporting and addressing complaints of misconduct.
Key provisions. Fabrication, falsification or improper manipulation of data are stated to be highly unethical and impermissible for any reason. All listed authors of a publication should have contributed significantly to it; guest authorship is inappropriate, and no one may be included as an author without their clear consent. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, always amounts to ethical misconduct and requires redressal.
Source: TIFR Guidelines on Academic Ethics (PDF) · TIFR academic procedures, including the policy on AI in academic work
UGC Regulations, 2018National · India
The binding national regulation on academic integrity and plagiarism for Indian higher educational institutions, including graded penalties by similarity level.
What it covers. The UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018 define academic integrity as “the intellectual honesty in proposing, performing and reporting any activity, which leads to the creation of intellectual property,” and require institutions to detect and act on plagiarism in theses, dissertations and publications.
Key provisions. Similarity in the core work is graded into four levels: up to 10 percent (minor, excluded from penalty), 10 to 40 percent, 40 to 60 percent, and above 60 percent, with escalating penalties for students and faculty at each level. Institutions must use plagiarism-detection tools, constitute Academic Misconduct Panels, and provide awareness programmes. The UGC separately mandates coursework in research and publication ethics for doctoral scholars.
COPE · Committee on Publication EthicsInternational · Publication ethics
The body whose guidance most journals follow when handling authorship disputes, plagiarism allegations, corrections and retractions.
What it is. COPE is a membership organisation of journals and publishers, including nearly every major publisher, that sets standards for how publication-ethics cases should be handled. When a journal investigates a concern about a published paper, it almost always follows COPE procedures.
Key materials. The Core Practices define what journals must have in place: policies on authorship and contributorship, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, post-publication discussion, and misconduct allegations. COPE flowcharts give editors step-by-step procedures for suspected plagiarism, fabricated data, authorship changes and duplicate publication, and the Retraction Guidelines set out when a paper should be retracted, corrected or flagged with an expression of concern.
Why it matters at NCBS. If a question is ever raised about a paper you authored, the journal’s process will very likely be a COPE process. Understanding the framework in advance removes much of the uncertainty.
ICMJE RecommendationsInternational · Authorship
The most widely used criteria for who qualifies as an author, adopted across medical and life-science journals.
What it covers. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommends four criteria, all of which must be met for authorship: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Contributors who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.
Why it matters at NCBS. The pre-submission checklist records authorship and contributions explicitly, and ICMJE-style criteria are the reference point most journals apply if a dispute arises.
ORI · U.S. Office of Research IntegrityNational · United States
The source of the most widely cited formal definition of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.
What it covers. The U.S. federal definition, administered by ORI under 42 CFR Part 93, defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” A finding of misconduct requires a significant departure from accepted practices, committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, and proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Honest error and differences of opinion are explicitly excluded.
Why it matters at NCBS. The fabrication, falsification and plagiarism framework is the common vocabulary of research-integrity practice worldwide, and ORI’s educational materials and case summaries are a standard teaching resource in research ethics training.
Singapore Statement on Research IntegrityInternational · Principles
The reference statement of principles developed at the World Conference on Research Integrity, applicable to all researchers regardless of discipline or country.
What it covers. Developed at the Second World Conference on Research Integrity in 2010, the Statement rests on four principles: honesty in all aspects of research; accountability in the conduct of research; professional courtesy and fairness in working with others; and good stewardship of research on behalf of others. It elaborates these into fourteen responsibilities covering data practices, record keeping, authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, reporting misconduct and societal obligations.
ALLEA · European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityInternational · Europe
The European reference code, built on the principles of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability, and required reading for EU-funded research.
What it covers. The code of All European Academies articulates four principles: reliability in ensuring the quality of research; honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research; respect for colleagues, participants, subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment; and accountability for the research from idea to publication. The 2023 revision addresses data practices, publication norms and the responsible use of AI tools in research.
Why it matters at NCBS. International collaborations and European funders commonly require adherence to this code, and its treatment of questionable research practices, beyond outright misconduct, is among the most carefully articulated available.
Source: ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity