Springer Nature has released a white paper revealing substantial international disparities in the provision of research integrity training, highlighting variations in access, delivery formats, timing, and comprehension across different regions.
The analysis, introduced by Nature’s Editor-in-Chief at the launch event, emphasizes the need for stronger institutional leadership and more adaptable training to embed research integrity at all stages of academic careers.
The study’s findings are based on surveys conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Japan, China, and Brazil. While a large majority of respondents indicated support for mandatory training in research integrity, the report notes significant differences in the availability of such training and limited requirements for demonstrating comprehension.
Research integrity forms the bedrock of reliable scientific inquiry. Despite a growing consensus on its importance, previous symposia, such as the one hosted by Nature in Australia in 2019, have identified a lack of understanding about how integrity principles are taught and applied. The national surveys, conducted in collaboration with research institutions, national academies, and funding bodies, were designed to fill this gap. They examined how research integrity and responsible research practices are integrated into training, the topics covered, and whether current training meets researchers’ expectations and responsibilities.
Key findings include:
• Access to training varies considerably: the highest levels were reported in China (79%) and Japan (73%), followed by Australia (68%), the United States (56%), India (53%), the United Kingdom (51%), and Brazil (27%). Notably, countries with lower reported training access, such as the UK and Brazil, also showed fewer retractions, indicating that training provision alone does not necessarily predict integrity outcomes.
• Across all surveyed countries, between 84% and 94% of respondents support mandatory research integrity training during their careers.
• A minority of researchers (7–29%) in any given country are required to demonstrate understanding through formal assessments; in most cases, evaluations rely on self-assessment or group discussions.
• Training is typically targeted at postgraduate students and early-career researchers, though broader inclusion of non-academic staff was noted in China and of executive staff in Japan, potentially reflecting institutional commitments.
• Delivery methods differ across regions: most countries employ a combination of online and in-person formats. Japan primarily uses online-only training, while India favors in-person delivery more than other countries.
• Researchers consistently expressed a need for further guidance on authorship. In Australia, the US, the UK, and Brazil, respondents highlighted a desire for more training on the curation and sharing of research data.
The white paper advocates for a hybrid approach, combining a globally consistent online core curriculum with tailored, in-person components that address specific institutional and disciplinary needs. Springer Nature’s Director of Research Environment Alliances emphasized that while training is essential, not all challenges can be resolved through training alone. For issues such as complex data management, direct institutional support may be more appropriate.
The surveys provide an essential baseline for understanding global practices in research integrity training and for shaping future initiatives. Springer Nature plans to extend the analysis to at least one African country to gain further insights into regional differences and to engage with stakeholders in all surveyed countries to discuss the results in more detail.
The white paper will be officially launched during a keynote presentation by Nature’s Editor-in-Chief at the SIRION 2025 Research Integrity Conference on 29 May 2025.
Click here to read the original press release.
