ResearchHub · Scientist Ranking Academy
Research Integrity in Scientist Recognition
How responsible rankings distinguish documented record problems from unsupported allegations.
Integrity spans several practices
Reliable research depends on appropriate methods, honest reporting, ethical approval where required, fair authorship, conflict disclosures and willingness to correct errors. Most of these qualities cannot be fully captured by a single metric.
Public evidence has boundaries
Formal corrections and retraction notices can be tracked more reliably than rumours or anonymous accusations. A ranking should not turn unverified allegations into labels that damage a researcher's reputation.
Procedural fairness
Where a record raises a legitimate issue, document the source, allow review and provide a correction pathway. A paused or ineligible certificate status should not automatically be described as an adjudication of personal misconduct.
Why this matters
The aim is trustworthy recognition, not punishment by algorithm. Bibliometric evidence, responsible research practice and careful human oversight are complementary rather than interchangeable.
