Research Integrity Policy

Purpose and scope of this policy

This policy states the commitments ENGRexpert makes regarding research integrity in its services. It applies to all engagements and communications related to modelling, simulation, data analysis, technical consulting and manuscript support. It is written as a plain-language statement of practice, not as a legal contract, and it should be read together with the research integrity page, the terms page and the privacy policy page.

Commitments to clients and to the scholarly record

We commit to describing our services accurately; to stating limitations and uncertainties; to documenting methods and assumptions; to keeping client information confidential; to refusing requests that would compromise integrity; to correcting mistakes when we find them; and to avoiding claims we cannot support. We commit to treating clients respectfully regardless of their institution, country, career stage or language.

We also commit to respecting the work of others by citing sources accurately and by not reproducing protected material without permission.

Roles and responsibilities

Clients are responsible for their data, ethical approvals, funding disclosures, authorship decisions, conclusions and compliance with journal policies. We are responsible for the quality and honesty of the work we deliver within the agreed scope. Journals, editors and institutions are responsible for editorial and misconduct decisions.

This division of responsibility is deliberate: it keeps accountability with those who have the authority and knowledge to exercise it.

Handling errors and corrections

If we discover an error in delivered work, we will inform the client promptly, explain the nature and likely impact, and provide a correction. If an error affects a submitted or published paper, the client should contact the journal to request a correction in line with its procedures. If we make an error on this website, we will correct it and, where material, note the correction.

We encourage clients and readers to report errors.

Use of generative tools

Where generative tools are used in any step, a person reviews and takes responsibility for the output. We do not use such tools to fabricate data, results or citations. We follow the disclosure policy of the target journal and encourage clients to do the same.

We do not input client confidential material into external tools that retain or train on it without the client's explicit agreement.

Complaints and concerns

Concerns can be raised through the contact page. We will acknowledge the message, review the concern and respond with an explanation or corrective action. For allegations of research misconduct concerning a client's work, we will not take part in concealing or distorting evidence, and we encourage referral to the institution or journal.

We will not retaliate against anyone who raises a good-faith concern.

Review of this policy

This policy is reviewed periodically and when relevant guidance changes. The version date is shown on the page. It is a statement of practice and not a contract; contractual terms are set out in the written engagement agreement.

Detailed commitments on data and methods

When we analyse client data, we keep an unaltered copy, document every transformation, retain scripts and report exclusions with reasons. When we build models, we document assumptions, parameter sources and verification steps. When we summarise literature, we cite the original source and flag secondary sources. When we are uncertain, we say so.

These commitments exist to make our work checkable by clients, co-authors, reviewers and, if needed, investigators.

Authorship and acknowledgement policy

We do not accept authorship credit unless we have genuinely contributed to the research in a way that meets the target journal's criteria and the client has agreed. Otherwise we ask to be acknowledged according to journal policy, or not at all, at the client's choice. We do not demand authorship as a condition of providing a service.

We advise clients to follow their institution's authorship policies and, where applicable, the contributor roles taxonomy to describe contributions.

Image and data manipulation

We do not manipulate images or data in ways that would mislead. When we re-draw figures, we use the original data and keep the scripts. When we crop or adjust images at a client's request for legibility, we apply changes uniformly and document them. We refuse requests to hide or remove inconvenient data points without a documented, justified reason.

Outlier treatment must be justified by criteria set before inspecting results or by documented technical faults.

Peer review and editorial processes

We do not take part in peer-review manipulation, including fabricated reviewer identities, review rings or coordinated citation. We do not pressure editors or reviewers. We help clients respond constructively to genuine reviews and respect the confidentiality of review processes.

If an editor or journal asks for information about our role in a manuscript, we will respond honestly, with the client's consent where confidential material is concerned.

Security and retention of client materials

Client materials are stored only as long as needed for the engagement and an agreed period for corrections, after which they are deleted or returned. Access is limited to people involved in the work. Clients should not send passwords, personal identifiers or confidential patient data. If a security incident affecting client material occurs, we will notify the client promptly.

Retention details are part of the engagement agreement and the privacy policy.

Training and continuous improvement

We keep up with guidance on research integrity and reporting standards, and we update our practices accordingly. We review completed engagements for lessons and revise procedures when issues appear. Clients are welcome to give feedback on whether our process supported integrity and clarity.

We also review this site periodically for statements that could mislead and correct them.

Limits of this policy

This policy is a statement of practice and does not create legal rights beyond what a separate written agreement provides. It does not replace the policies of journals, funders or institutions, which take precedence in their domains. Where law requires otherwise, the law applies.

Definitions used in this policy

Fabrication means making up data or results. Falsification means manipulating materials, equipment, processes or data so that research is not accurately represented. Plagiarism means using others' work or words without appropriate credit. Questionable research practices include selective reporting, undisclosed flexibility in analysis, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication and failure to disclose conflicts. We use these definitions in line with widely recognised guidance, and we refuse to participate in any of them.

A support provider, a reviewer, an editor and an author each has different responsibilities within this system, and misconduct by any of them harms the scholarly record.

How we apply the policy in practice

At scoping, we ask whether the data are original and approved, whether there are conflicts of interest and what the journal's policies are. During the work, we log decisions, check sources and raise concerns when we see them. At delivery, we state what was done and what was not. After delivery, we respond to questions and correct errors.

If a client insists on a course of action that conflicts with this policy, we will stop the work and explain why.

Transparency about our role

Where journals request a statement about editorial or technical support, clients should disclose our involvement in the manner the journal requires. We can provide a short factual description of the support given. We do not ask clients to conceal our involvement.

This transparency protects clients if questions are raised later.

Guidance for early-career researchers

Early-career researchers face pressure to publish, which can make shortcuts tempting. Slow, careful work, with clear documentation and honest reporting, is more likely to produce a durable record. Discuss difficult decisions with supervisors and use institutional research-integrity advisers. Seeking help with presentation is legitimate; seeking help to deceive is not.

We try to help early-career researchers build skills as well as deliver outputs.

Version history and contact for integrity matters

This policy will be versioned with a date and a summary of changes when updated. Questions or concerns about integrity may be sent via the contact page with the subject integrity concern. We will aim to respond promptly and handle sensitive information confidentially, within legal obligations.

Relationship with institutional and publisher policies

Universities, funders and publishers have their own integrity policies, which may be stricter than this statement. Where they differ, clients should follow the stricter requirement. We are happy to read policy extracts and help clients understand how they apply to the work in question, though we are not a substitute for institutional advisers.

Examples include policies on data management, authorship contributions, generative tools, duplicate submissions, preprints and conflicts of interest.