13  Research ethics

13.1 What the Syllabus Covers

Research ethics is the set of moral principles and professional standards that govern the conduct of research and the treatment of participants, data and findings. The candidate is expected to recognise:

  1. The principles of research ethics.
  2. The major forms of misconduct (FFP).
  3. Institutional safeguards (IRB / IEC, IACUC, plagiarism regulations, IPR).
  4. Historic landmark codes (Nuremberg, Helsinki, Belmont, CIOMS, ICMR, UGC).
  5. Authorship, conflict of interest, data sharing norms.

Most-repeated PYQ patterns: distinguishing plagiarism vs paraphrasing vs self-plagiarism, identifying FFP, recognising the Belmont Report’s three principles, matching codes to events, and recognising the UGC plagiarism levels and percentages.

13.2 Core Principles of Research Ethics

TipFive Core Principles
Principle What it asks of the researcher
Beneficence Maximise benefits; minimise harm
Non-maleficence “First, do no harm”
Justice Fair selection and fair distribution of benefits and burdens
Autonomy Respect the person’s right to choose; informed consent
Integrity Honest, transparent, and accountable conduct

The Belmont Report (1979) condensed these into three principles: Respect for Persons · Beneficence · Justice. Beauchamp & Childress (1979, Principles of Biomedical Ethics) added Non-maleficence to make the canonical four bioethics principles used worldwide.

flowchart TB
  E{Research<br/>Ethics} --> P[Principles<br/>Belmont 3 + Non-maleficence]
  E --> M[Misconduct<br/>FFP + Plagiarism]
  E --> S[Safeguards<br/>IRB · IEC · IACUC]
  E --> A[Authorship<br/>ICMJE 4 Criteria]
  E --> L[Landmarks<br/>Nuremberg · Helsinki · CIOMS · ICMR · UGC]
    classDef default fill:#003366,color:#ffffff,stroke:#ffcc00,stroke-width:3px,rx:10px,ry:10px;

13.3 Historic Landmarks Driving Research Ethics

13.3.1 What Forced the Field to Codify

TipThe Historical Triggers
  • Nazi medical experiments during WWII → Nuremberg Code (1947).
  • Thalidomide tragedy (1957–62) → tightening of drug regulation.
  • Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–72, USA) — 600 African-American men, denial of penicillin → Belmont Report (1979) and US Common Rule.
  • Henrietta Lacks (HeLa cells, 1951) — cells taken without consent → modern consent norms for biospecimens.
  • Willowbrook hepatitis study (1956–70) — children injected to study hepatitis → IRB reforms.
  • Milgram obedience (1961) and Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971) → psychology ethics tightening.
  • Schön (physics, 2002), Hwang Woo-suk (stem cells, 2005), Wakefield (MMR-autism, 1998 retracted 2010) — modern research-misconduct cases.

13.3.2 The Codes — In Chronological Order

TipLandmark Codes
Year Code Issued by Key contribution
1947 Nuremberg Code US Tribunal at Nuremberg First international code — 10 principles; voluntary informed consent is “absolutely essential”
1949 WMA founded World Medical Association Convened to issue the Helsinki code
1964 Declaration of Helsinki WMA Ethics for medical research on humans; revised multiple times (latest 2024)
1974 National Research Act (USA) US Congress Established the National Commission that wrote Belmont
1979 Belmont Report US National Commission Three principles: Respect, Beneficence, Justice
1982 CIOMS guidelines Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (with WHO) International ethics for biomedical research
2000 ICMR Ethical Guidelines ICMR (India) Indian biomedical research ethics; latest 2017
2017 NDCT Rules DCGI (India) New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules; embeds ethics in trials
2018 UGC Promotion of Academic Integrity Regulations UGC (India) Plagiarism levels and penalties
2019 NMC Act (India) Parliament Replaced MCI; renewed medical ethics framework
2024 WMA Helsinki (revised) WMA Latest revision; community engagement, vulnerable groups

13.4 Forms of Research Misconduct — FFP and Beyond

13.4.1 The Big Three — FFP

TipThe Three Cardinal Misconduct Forms (FFP)
  • F — Fabrication — making up data or results.
  • F — Falsification — manipulating data, results, processes; changing or omitting selectively.
  • P — Plagiarism — presenting another’s words, ideas, or results as one’s own without due credit.

US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), UGC, and ICMR all adopt the FFP framing for “serious research misconduct”.

13.4.2 Other Recognised Misconduct

TipOther Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices (QRP)
  • Authorship abuse — ghost, guest, gift, coercive authorship.
  • Duplicate / redundant publication — same paper twice.
  • Salami slicing — splitting one study into many “least publishable units”.
  • Self-plagiarism / text recycling — reusing one’s own text without disclosure.
  • HARKing — Hypothesising After the Results are Known.
  • p-hacking — running multiple tests until a significant p-value appears.
  • Cherry-picking — selectively reporting results.
  • Data dredging / fishing.
  • Image manipulation — altering western blots, micrographs.
  • Coercive citation — editor pressures author to cite the journal.
  • Conflict of interest non-disclosure.
  • Animal-welfare violations.
  • Breach of confidentiality.
  • Unethical authorship gifts.

13.5 Plagiarism — Types and Indian Regulation

13.5.1 Forms of Plagiarism

TipForms of Plagiarism
  • Verbatim / direct — copy-paste without quotation marks or citation.
  • Mosaic / patchwriting — minor changes, copied structure.
  • Paraphrasing without attribution — reworded but uncited.
  • Self-plagiarism — reusing one’s own prior text without disclosure.
  • Translation plagiarism — translating a foreign-language text and presenting as original.
  • Source-based / misattribution — citing wrong or non-existent source.
  • Idea plagiarism — using another’s ideas without credit.
  • Accidental plagiarism — poor record-keeping; still misconduct.

13.5.2 UGC’s 2018 Plagiarism Regulations

The University Grants Commission notification — Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions Regulations, 2018 — defines four levels of plagiarism, with similarity percentages and graded penalties.

TipUGC Plagiarism Levels (2018)
Level Similarity % Action — Student Action — Faculty/Staff
0 ≤ 10 % Acceptable Acceptable
1 > 10 % – 40 % Revise & resubmit within 6 months Warning; withdraw manuscript
2 > 40 % – 60 % Debar 1 year; cannot resubmit for 1 year Suspend annual increments for 1 year; cannot supervise for 2 years
3 > 60 % Registration cancelled; cannot register elsewhere for 1 year Suspend annual increments for 2 years; cannot supervise for 3 years; possible service-termination

Quotes, references, tables of contents, common knowledge, generic technical terms, and bibliography are excluded from the calculation. The IDC (Departmental Academic Integrity Committee) and IAIC (Institutional Academic Integrity Committee) handle cases.

13.5.3 Tools

Already covered in Topic 11 — Turnitin, iThenticate, Drillbit (UGC-empanelled), Crossref Similarity Check. AI-detection: GPTZero, Originality.ai, Turnitin AI, Copyleaks.

13.6 Authorship Ethics — ICMJE Criteria

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) sets the global authorship standard. All four criteria must be met to qualify as an author:

TipICMJE Four Criteria of Authorship
  1. Substantial contribution to conception/design OR data acquisition/analysis/interpretation.
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
  3. Final approval of the version to be published.
  4. Accountability — agreement to be accountable for accuracy and integrity.
TipAuthorship Abuses to Recognise
  • Ghost author — wrote the paper, name omitted (e.g., paid medical writers).
  • Guest / honorary author — eminent but contributed nothing.
  • Gift author — name added for friendship, future favour.
  • Coercive author — supervisor forces inclusion.
  • Anonymous author — withholding identity.
TipStandard Author Order Conventions
  • First author — major contributor; often the doctoral candidate.
  • Last author — senior PI / supervisor in life sciences.
  • Corresponding author — handles submission, queries, post-publication issues.
  • Equal contribution — denoted by * or †.
  • Acknowledgements — for those who helped but did not meet ICMJE bar.
  • CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) — explicit roles (conceptualisation, methodology, software, etc.).

13.8 Institutional Safeguards

TipIndian Institutional Bodies
  • IRB — Institutional Review Board.
  • IEC — Institutional Ethics Committee (the typical Indian biomedical body, registered with CDSCO under NDCT Rules 2019).
  • IACUC — Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
  • CPCSEA — Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (India).
  • IBSC — Institutional Biosafety Committee for GMO research (under RCGM, DBT).
  • RCGM — Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (DBT).
  • GEAC — Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (MoEF&CC).
  • DAIC / IAIC — Departmental / Institutional Academic Integrity Committees (UGC 2018).
  • IPR cell — institution-level IP management.

13.8.1 IRB / IEC Review Categories

TipThree IRB / IEC Review Categories
  1. Exempt — minimal risk; e.g., anonymous educational survey.
  2. Expedited — minimal risk; chair-only review.
  3. Full board — more than minimal risk; vulnerable populations; sensitive data.

13.9 Conflict of Interest, Funding & Data

13.9.1 Conflict of Interest (COI)

A COI exists when a researcher has secondary interests (financial, academic, personal) that could compromise primary obligations to integrity, participants, or society.

TipTwo Types of COI
  • Financial — consultancy, shares, patents, paid travel.
  • Non-financial — personal relationships, professional rivalries, ideological commitments.

Modern norm: declare, manage, and where necessary recuse.

13.9.2 Data Management and Sharing

TipFAIR Data Principles (2016)

F — Findable · A — Accessible · I — Interoperable · R — Reusable.

FAIR is the international standard for research-data stewardship (Wilkinson et al., Scientific Data, 2016). Many funders mandate Data Management Plans (DMP) and deposit in Zenodo / Figshare / Dryad / OSF.

TipOpen Data + Privacy Tension
  • Open data — maximise reuse.
  • Privacy / DPDP Act 2023 (India) — protect personal data.
  • De-identification, anonymisation, k-anonymity — methods to share safely.
  • Data sovereignty — Indian data resides under Indian law.

13.10 Intellectual Property and Research

TipForms of Intellectual Property
Form What it protects Indian law
Patent Inventions Patents Act 1970 (amended 2005)
Copyright Original expression of ideas Copyright Act 1957
Trademark Brand names, logos Trade Marks Act 1999
Industrial design Aesthetic shape of articles Designs Act 2000
Geographical Indication (GI) Region-specific products (Darjeeling tea, Kanchipuram saree) GI Act 1999
Trade secret Confidential business information Common-law protection
Plant variety New plant varieties PPV&FR Act 2001
Layout designs of ICs Semiconductor chip designs SCILD Act 2000

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), UN agency, frames international IP. TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995) — WTO baseline that India is part of. National IPR Policy 2016 (India) + Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM).

13.11 Special Topics

13.11.1 Ethics in Animal and Biosafety Research

3Rs principle (Russell & Burch, 1959) — Replace · Reduce · Refine — guides animal-research ethics. India: CPCSEA + IAEC + 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

13.11.2 Vulnerable Populations

Children, pregnant women, prisoners, refugees, indigenous communities, persons with disability, persons with severe mental illness, terminally ill, sex workers, marginalised castes — special safeguards required.

13.11.3 Dual-Use Research

Research that could be misused for harm (bioweapons, surveillance, nuclear). Frameworks: Asilomar Conference 1975 (recombinant DNA), NSABB (US), WHO dual-use guidance.

13.11.4 AI, Privacy and Generative Tools in Research

Disclosure of AI use, no AI co-authorship, anonymisation of confidential data before inputting into AI tools, accuracy verification of AI-generated content, IP and licensing of AI outputs.

13.11.5 Ethics of Indigenous and Community-Based Research

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), community ownership of data, benefit-sharing (Nagoya Protocol 2010 on access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources).

13.12 Sanctions, Whistle-blowing and Retraction

TipSanctions Spectrum
  • Correction / Erratum — minor errors.
  • Expression of concern — concerns under investigation.
  • Retraction — full withdrawal of paper.
  • Debarment from funding.
  • Suspension / termination of employment.
  • Withdrawal of degree.
  • Criminal prosecution in fraud cases.

Retraction Watch (founded 2010) is the standard global tracker. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, 1997) provides flowcharts for editors handling misconduct.

TipWhistleblower Protection

India: Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014. UGC and ICMR provide internal channels. International: ENWAP, ORI.

13.13 Indian Frameworks in Snapshot

TipIndian Research-Ethics Frameworks
  • UGC Promotion of Academic Integrity Regulations, 2018 — plagiarism levels.
  • UGC PhD Regulations, 2022 — pre-submission seminar, Shodhganga deposit.
  • ICMR National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research, 2017 — flagship Indian biomedical ethics.
  • New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019 (Ministry of Health) — IEC registration.
  • DBT Biosafety guidelines — for genetic-engineering research.
  • CPCSEA — animal research oversight.
  • DPDP Act, 2023 — Digital Personal Data Protection.
  • National Research Foundation / ANRF Act 2023 — apex funding body, embeds ethics.
  • National IPR Policy 2016 — overarching IP framework.
  • 3Rs principle for animal research (Russell & Burch, 1959).

13.14 International Frameworks in Snapshot

TipInternational Frameworks
  • Nuremberg Code (1947) — Voluntary consent.
  • WMA Declaration of Helsinki (1964; latest 2024) — Biomedical ethics.
  • Belmont Report (1979) — Three principles.
  • CIOMS Guidelines (1982, revised 2016) — International biomedical ethics.
  • ICH-GCP (Good Clinical Practice) — Trial standards (E6 R3 in 2024).
  • WHO TDR / ERC — Research Ethics Review framework.
  • UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005).
  • Nagoya Protocol (2010) — Genetic-resource access & benefit-sharing.
  • FAIR data principles (2016) — Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable.
  • TRIPS (1995) — IP standards.
  • GDPR (EU, 2018) — Privacy benchmark.
  • DORA (2012) — San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment; moves away from journal-impact-factor evaluation.
  • Asilomar (1975) — Recombinant DNA self-regulation.
  • Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010).
  • Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research (2013).

13.15 Theory Anchors and Bodies at a Glance

TipPersons, Bodies, Years
Person / Body Year Contribution PYQ hook
Nuremberg Tribunal 1947 Nuremberg Code — voluntary consent First international code
World Medical Association 1964 (2024 rev.) Declaration of Helsinki Biomedical ethics, periodic revision
US National Commission 1979 Belmont Report — 3 principles Respect, Beneficence, Justice
Beauchamp & Childress 1979 Principles of Biomedical Ethics — 4 principles + Non-maleficence
CIOMS 1982 International biomedical ethics International code
Russell & Burch 1959 3Rs of animal research Replace, Reduce, Refine
ICMR 2000, 2017 National Ethical Guidelines Indian biomedical ethics
UGC 2018 Plagiarism Regulations Levels & penalties
ICMJE 1978 onward Authorship 4 criteria, Vancouver style Authorship standard
WIPO / TRIPS 1967 / 1995 IP frameworks International IPR
Asilomar 1975 Recombinant DNA self-regulation Dual-use precedent
Wilkinson et al. 2016 FAIR Data Principles Open data
Tuskegee Study 1932–72 Trigger for Belmont Historical trigger
Henrietta Lacks 1951 HeLa cells consent issue Biospecimen consent
Milgram / Zimbardo 1961 / 1971 Psychology ethics violations Tightening of psychology ethics
DORA 2012 San Francisco Declaration Move beyond JIF
Singapore Statement 2010 4 principles + 14 responsibilities Global integrity
COPE 1997 Editor-side misconduct flowcharts Publication ethics

13.16 Practice Questions

Q 01 FFP Easy

"FFP" — the three cardinal forms of research misconduct — stands for:

  • AFabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism
  • BFraud, Forgery, Piracy
  • CFake, False, Plagiarised
  • DFabrication, Forgery, Patent-violation
View solution
Correct Option: A
Fabrication (making up data) · Falsification (manipulating data) · Plagiarism (using others' work as own).
Q 02 Nuremberg Medium

The Nuremberg Code (1947) was created in response to:

  • AThe Tuskegee Syphilis Study
  • BNazi medical experiments during WWII
  • CHenrietta Lacks's case
  • DThe Schön scandal
View solution
Correct Option: B
The 1947 Nuremberg Code emerged from the Doctors' Trial after WWII Nazi experiments. Its first principle: voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
Q 03 Belmont Medium

The three principles of the Belmont Report (1979) are:

  • ARespect for Persons, Beneficence, Justice
  • BAutonomy, Veracity, Privacy
  • CConfidentiality, Disclosure, Voluntariness
  • DConsent, Care, Compensation
View solution
Correct Option: A
Belmont: Respect for Persons · Beneficence · Justice. Beauchamp & Childress (1979) added Non-maleficence to give the 4-principles of bioethics.
Q 04 Helsinki Medium

The Declaration of Helsinki (1964; latest revision 2024) is issued by:

  • AWHO
  • BWorld Medical Association
  • CUNESCO
  • DCIOMS
View solution
Correct Option: B
The Declaration of Helsinki is issued and periodically revised by the World Medical Association (WMA).
Q 05 UGC 2018 Hard

Under UGC's 2018 plagiarism regulations, a similarity of 35 % in a thesis chapter falls in:

  • ALevel 0 (acceptable)
  • BLevel 1
  • CLevel 2
  • DLevel 3
View solution
Correct Option: B
UGC levels: ≤10% acceptable; >10–40% = Level 1; >40–60% = Level 2; >60% = Level 3.
Q 06 Self-Plagiarism Medium

Reusing one's OWN previously published text in a new paper without disclosure is called:

  • AAcceptable, as it is one's own work
  • BSelf-plagiarism / text recycling
  • CCherry-picking
  • DGhost writing
View solution
Correct Option: B
Self-plagiarism (or text recycling) — undisclosed reuse of one's own prior work — is a recognised form of misconduct.
Q 07 Authorship Medium

A senior researcher who has contributed nothing is added to an author list out of deference. This is:

  • AGhost authorship
  • BGuest / honorary authorship
  • CCorresponding authorship
  • DEqual contribution
View solution
Correct Option: B
Guest / honorary author = eminent person, no contribution. Ghost = real contributor whose name is omitted.
Q 08 ICMJE Hard

According to ICMJE, ALL of the following criteria MUST be met for authorship EXCEPT:

  • ASubstantial contribution to design or data
  • BDrafting or critical revision
  • CSecuring the funding for the project
  • DAccountability for the work
View solution
Correct Option: C
ICMJE's 4 criteria are: substantial contribution, drafting/revision, final approval, accountability. Funding alone does NOT qualify.
Q 09 Tuskegee Hard

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–1972) led DIRECTLY to which subsequent ethics document?

  • ANuremberg Code
  • BDeclaration of Helsinki
  • CBelmont Report
  • DSingapore Statement
View solution
Correct Option: C
Public outrage at Tuskegee (~600 African-American men denied penicillin) led to the US National Research Act (1974), creating the National Commission that wrote the Belmont Report (1979).
Q 10 3Rs Medium

The "3Rs" principle for ethical animal research stands for:

  • ARight, Responsibility, Restraint
  • BReplace, Reduce, Refine
  • CRespect, Record, Report
  • DResearch, Replicate, Refute
View solution
Correct Option: B
Russell & Burch (1959): Replace (use alternatives), Reduce (fewer animals), Refine (lessen suffering).
Q 11 CPCSEA Hard

CPCSEA, India's apex body for animal-research oversight, is constituted under the:

  • ADrugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
  • BPrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960
  • CNDCT Rules 2019
  • DWildlife Protection Act 1972
View solution
Correct Option: B
CPCSEA (Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals) is statutory under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Q 12 FAIR Data Medium

The FAIR data principles (2016) stand for:

  • AFree, Accurate, Indexed, Reproducible
  • BFindable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable
  • CFair, Anonymous, Indexed, Released
  • DFindable, Auditable, Indexed, Replicated
View solution
Correct Option: B
FAIR = Findable · Accessible · Interoperable · Reusable (Wilkinson et al., Scientific Data, 2016).
Q 13 DORA Hard

The DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 2012) primarily argues against using which single metric for research evaluation?

  • Ah-index
  • BJournal Impact Factor (JIF)
  • CAltmetrics
  • DSJR
View solution
Correct Option: B
DORA pushed back against using Journal Impact Factor as the primary evaluation tool, advocating outcome-based and qualitative assessment.
Q 14 Bioethics 4 Medium

Beauchamp & Childress's four principles of biomedical ethics are: autonomy, beneficence, justice, and:

  • AVeracity
  • BNon-maleficence
  • CPrivacy
  • DConsent
View solution
Correct Option: B
Non-maleficence — "First, do no harm". Added by Beauchamp & Childress (1979) to Belmont's three.
Q 15 Consent Elements Medium

Which is NOT among the four elements of informed consent?

  • ADisclosure
  • BComprehension
  • CCompensation
  • DVoluntariness
View solution
Correct Option: C
Four elements: Disclosure · Comprehension · Voluntariness · Competence. Compensation is a separate consideration (and often part of disclosure).
Q 16 India Hard

The ICMR National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research were last comprehensively revised in:

  • A2000
  • B2006
  • C2017
  • D2023
View solution
Correct Option: C
ICMR revised its national guidelines in 2017 (first issued 2000, revised 2006, comprehensive update 2017).
Q 17 IP Medium

A Geographical Indication (GI) protects products tied to a region. In India, the GI Act was enacted in:

  • A1957
  • B1970
  • C1999
  • D2005
View solution
Correct Option: C
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Examples: Darjeeling Tea (first), Kanchipuram Saree, Tirupati Laddu.
Q 18 Match Medium

Match each code with its year of FIRST issue:

(i) Nuremberg Code (a) 1964
(ii) Declaration of Helsinki (b) 1947
(iii) Belmont Report (c) 1982
(iv) CIOMS Guidelines (d) 1979
  • A(i)-b, (ii)-a, (iii)-d, (iv)-c
  • B(i)-a, (ii)-b, (iii)-c, (iv)-d
  • C(i)-c, (ii)-d, (iii)-b, (iv)-a
  • D(i)-d, (ii)-c, (iii)-a, (iv)-b
View solution
Correct Option: A
Nuremberg 1947 → Helsinki 1964 → Belmont 1979 → CIOMS 1982.
Q 19 COPE Hard

COPE — which provides flowcharts to journal editors handling research misconduct — stands for:

  • ACouncil on Publishing Ethics
  • BCommittee on Publication Ethics
  • CConference on Plagiarism Enforcement
  • DCoalition for Open Peer Evaluation
View solution
Correct Option: B
COPE = Committee on Publication Ethics (founded 1997, UK). Editor-facing standards and flowcharts.
Q 20 Misconduct Hard

A researcher repeatedly publishes overlapping fragments of one study as several short papers. This is BEST classified as:

  • AFabrication
  • BSalami slicing
  • CFalsification
  • DHARKing
View solution
Correct Option: B
Salami slicing — fragmenting one study into many "least publishable units" — inflates publication count and is a recognised questionable research practice.

13.17 Quick Recall

ImportantQuick recall
  • 5 core principles: Beneficence · Non-maleficence · Justice · Autonomy · Integrity.
  • Belmont 3 (1979): Respect for Persons · Beneficence · Justice.
  • Beauchamp & Childress 4 (1979): Autonomy · Beneficence · Non-maleficence · Justice.
  • FFP misconduct: Fabrication · Falsification · Plagiarism.
  • Other misconduct/QRP: Authorship abuse · Salami slicing · Self-plagiarism · HARKing · p-hacking · Cherry-picking · Coercive citation · COI non-disclosure · Image manipulation.
  • Types of plagiarism: Verbatim · Mosaic · Paraphrase · Self · Translation · Source-based · Idea · Accidental.
  • UGC 2018 plagiarism levels: L0 ≤10% (OK) · L1 >10–40% (warn/revise) · L2 >40–60% (debar 1yr / 2yr no supervise) · L3 >60% (registration cancelled / 3yr no supervise).
  • Codes timeline: Nuremberg 1947 (consent) → Helsinki 1964 (WMA; latest 2024) → Belmont 1979 (3 principles) → CIOMS 1982 (international biomedical) → Singapore 2010 (integrity).
  • Historical triggers: Nazi experiments → Nuremberg; Tuskegee 1932–72 → Belmont; HeLa 1951 → biospecimen consent; Willowbrook → IRB reform; Milgram/Zimbardo → psych ethics.
  • 3Rs (Russell & Burch 1959): Replace · Reduce · Refine.
  • ICMJE 4 criteria: Substantial contribution · Drafting/revision · Final approval · Accountability.
  • Authorship abuses: Ghost · Guest/Honorary · Gift · Coercive · Anonymous.
  • CRediT taxonomy — explicit contributor roles.
  • 4 elements of consent: Disclosure · Comprehension · Voluntariness · Competence.
  • IRB / IEC categories: Exempt · Expedited · Full board.
  • Indian bodies: IEC (NDCT Rules 2019, CDSCO registration) · IACUC/CPCSEA (PCA Act 1960) · IBSC (RCGM, DBT) · GEAC · DAIC/IAIC (UGC 2018).
  • FAIR data (Wilkinson 2016): Findable · Accessible · Interoperable · Reusable.
  • Privacy/IP India: DPDP Act 2023 · Patents Act 1970 (2005) · Copyright 1957 · Trade Marks 1999 · GI Act 1999 · PPV&FR 2001 · National IPR Policy 2016.
  • International IP: WIPO · TRIPS 1995.
  • ICMR Guidelines: 2000 → 2006 → 2017.
  • NDCT Rules: 2019 (replaced Schedule Y).
  • DORA 2012: anti-JIF for evaluation. COPE 1997: editor flowcharts. Singapore Statement 2010. Retraction Watch 2010.
  • Asilomar 1975: dual-use precedent (rDNA). Nagoya 2010: access & benefit-sharing.
  • AI disclosure: required; AI cannot be a co-author.