Certain interactive features from this article are only available in the full digital issue.

Read Full Issue (subscribers)

“The center of this conversation is all about building networks and communities,”

Robert Nobles declared from the stage at the inaugural National Conference on Research Integrity in Chicago this past May. “Don’t sit around and wait for someone to tell you what to do. Get out there and do it,” the Vice President for Research at Emory University implored the audience.

It would seem the organizers and the research community got the message. Key research integrity officials from all across the United States—including some representatives from Europe and the UK—gathered together in Chicago to set the national agenda to safeguard scientific research. The major players were on board: The National Conference on Research Integrity (NCRI) was co-sponsored by Northwestern University and by the HHS Office of Research Integrity. A variety of other organizations contributed, as well, and the conference was put on by Maryland-based Rose Li and Associates.

In such a critical moment for the scientific enterprise, the atmosphere was a mixture of optimism and concern. In 2025, trust in science has been up front and center. The incentives contributing to research misconduct have never been stronger—and NCRI participants faced a daunting list of challenges, from increasing publication pressures on researchers, dramatically shrinking research funding, the ease of using AI tools for creating fake research, to the proliferation of “paper mills” churning out fake journal articles.

The research community faces significant barriers to fixing problems, too. Research organizations are still heavily siloed, and people aren’t sharing ideas across sectors. Institutional leadership often has a tepid response to research integrity, and rank-and-file researchers see it as a “check-the-box” compliance annoyance. There’s even a lack of shared vocabulary about what research integrity means and how best to foster it.

Faced with these challenges, NCRI organizers knew they needed to do something different to change the status quo. Rather than framing everything around problems, the inaugural meeting focused on identifying incentives to advance research integrity. Discussions centered on three main stakeholder groups: institutions, funders, and publishers.

Did You Know?

Paper mills are malevolent companies that generate and sell manuscripts to researchers. They prey on the perverse incentive structures of academia by churning out fake science for profit. Visit the LEARN Hub for more on identifying good and bad research practices.

Visit the LEARN Hub

But NCRI planners went further; instead of a meeting structured mostly around presentations, large portions of the conference were set up as workshops where participants could brainstorm ideas. After an extensive series of breakout conversations, participants crafted “playbooks” of concrete, actionable ideas they could bring back to their home institutions to make serious, meaningful change.

Focused on action, NCRI showcased many of these playbook ideas at the closing of the meeting. They included:

1. Developing credentials for responsible conduct of research training for faculty and staff

2. Creating awards for individuals and labs that uphold the highest standards of research integrity

3. Building up research integrity officer networks through national databases and the creation of local chapters

4. Adding research integrity activities to promotion and tenure packets, job descriptions, and performance reviews

5. Producing national guidelines on AI use

These are big ideas—and meant to meet the significant challenges ahead. NCRI participants emphasized this was only the first in a series of meetings that would occur every other year (off years would coincide with the World Conference on Research Integrity). The recommendations made by participants were deemed by many to be actionable and realistic—but would take sustained effort from the research community to be realized. More broadly, it was clear that the NCRI must go on. In the closing panel, Chris Graf, the Research Integrity Director at Springer Nature, opined that such efforts are cumulative.

Chris Graf, Research Integrity Director at Springer Nature

The research community has its work cut out for it. While public trust in science remains shaky, one gets the sense from the energy in Chicago that a new era may be on the horizon. Jennifer Ponting, one of the NCRI organizers, captured the sentiment:

Jennifer Ponting, NCRI organizer