REACH has now published five issues, and we would like to know which article stayed with you, what you valued about it and what we could do better. If you have not read REACH yet, we would still like to hear from you.
The survey has three short questions: https://forms.gle/fMw5ap1TzUVAS92dA
You can browse every issue at https://www.sci-integrity.com/reach, where many articles are free to read and SIA Subscribers can access full issues.
The SIA Subscription is now live, opening up a global community for everyone working to strengthen integrity, transparency and trust in research.
The subscription brings together resources, community spaces and practical support to help you apply research integrity in your day-to-day work.
Your subscription covers SIA's platforms:
REACH: every issue of SIA's quarterly digital magazine, with practical insights, commentary and emerging developments
HIKE: expert-led discussions where you can ask questions and exchange ideas with the wider community
ATLAS: help shape a growing encyclopedia of research integrity concepts, with acknowledgment for your contributions
I've just updated my preprint on short personal reviews of Academic Novels on Research Integrity, which now covers 35 titles. Please attend me to novels which you believe to belong to this list, but are not yet included.
Bouter L. Academic novels on research integrity. MetaArXiv (Submitted: January 9, 2025 -Last edited: January 13, 2026). https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/9ntxg
In today’s research world, paying to make your paper open access can cost thousands — but does it really lead to more citations? 📈
A new video lay summary, created for MIRROR, a resource from the Science Integrity Alliance, unpacks a large-scale study of 146,000+ biology papers that explored whether paying for open access truly increases visibility and impact.
The results? Open access can boost citations — especially for smaller research teams — but paying more doesn’t always mean reaching more readers.
🎥 Watch the 10-minute summary here: https://lnkd.in/eYy4T4mu
For more, please visit the MIRROR HUB
A new MIRROR summary from Science Integrity Alliance breaks down a study tracking how early COVID-19 preprints changed after expert review. The results? 🧠
✅ 4 in 5 preprints kept their core conclusions.
⚙️ Data stayed mostly the same — but some abstracts shifted tone.
🔍 Transparency and data sharing still lagged behind.
Science under pressure mostly held firm — but the study reminds us that open, transparent review is key to fighting misinformation and building public trust.
🎥 Watch the full 6-minute video summary here:
Thank you for posting this, it was an interesting watch. A good lay summary and I particularly liked this phrase : "They show science as it happens: messy, evolving and self-correcting". I think that policymakers and the public can lose sight of the fact that science isn't perfect, it is messy and evolves over time through that self-correction. I hope that the research community can work together to communicate that better. Videos like this can be a part of that.
This edition brings together insights, interviews, community updates, and new initiatives advancing research integrity and Open Science around the world. We're incredibly grateful to all contributors, partners, and Science Integrity Alliance members who helped shape this issue.
📖 Looking for inspiring weekend reading? Explore the latest issue and feel free to share it with colleagues or anyone interested in strengthening research practices. We always welcome your feedback and suggestions for future content.
🔗 Read the new issue here: https://www.sci-integrity.com/reach-october-december-2025
Thank you for helping us amplify responsible research practices across the global community. 🌎
This issue was a really interesting read and I got quite nostalgic reading about the history of the World Conferences on Research Integrity, having been there for the first one in Lisbon. WCRI has been an excellent source of support for the global research integrity community and the wider research community - I often use its outputs and guidance in my research integrity/ research culture work - and it's great to see this in-depth coverage in REACH.
Our new digital magazine transforms how we communicate about research integrity — bringing together plain language, visual storytelling, and interactive features to make knowledge both engaging and accessible.
📖 In this inaugural issue, explore:
✨ The launch of the Science Integrity Alliance
✨ Coverage of the first U.S. National Conference on Research Integrity
✨ An insider's view of COPE's evolution in publication ethics
✨ An exclusive interview with Lex Bouter
The launch of this inaugural issue marks an important milestone for our Alliance, bringing together some of the most important conversations happening in research integrity today. I truly hope our community enjoys reading it!
Excited to share that the Browse Solutions page of the Science Integrity Alliance website now features over 90 no-cost tools and services that support openness and integrity in research.
Solutions come from SIA’s Partner Network and selected external public sources, offering practical support across disciplines. You can also rate tools you’ve used and suggest additions to help improve this growing resource.
🔗 Explore here: https://www.sci-integrity.com/browse-solutions
This new collection of Open Science Integrity Guides, led by Reese Richardson, is very useful.
%20(30%20x%2046_8%20in)%20(5).png)
%20(30%20x%2046_8%20in)%20(3).png)
I don't think this rates inclusion in your list, as the following is just a single paragraph in a four-box series, but I was re-reading a classic science fiction novel recently - Julian May's The Golden Torc (1982) - and found that it mentions research misconduct! The context is when one character is giving their involvement in creating a key piece of technology years ago:
"I designed the original device at Berkeley, you know."
"I thought that Eisenmann -"
"I was a graduate student working under him. A young fool ... My work was promising, he said, but its potential might remain unrealised because I lacked the cachet necessary to attract Polity funding. However, if I worked under him there would be no problem. I was grateful and he was clever and the work was a resounding success. And now the entire Milieu knows Eisenmann the laureate. A few even remember Eusebio Gomez-Nolan, his faithful little assistant."
Though a fictional scenario in a fictional far-future, it's an all-too familiar situation.
"