Research integrity allows readers to understand how a study reached its conclusions and to assess the reliability of the evidence. GGSR expects transparent methods, traceable sources, proportionate interpretation, and clear responsibility for the work. These expectations apply to empirical, conceptual, review, and policy-oriented contributions.

Design and reporting

Explain how the research question shaped the design. Identify the institutional setting and period, the basis for selecting cases or participants, the evidence collected, and the analytical procedures used. Distinguish an observed relationship from a causal explanation, and distinguish the authors’ interpretation from statements made by research participants or source documents.

Report material uncertainty, contradictory evidence, and limitations affecting interpretation. Where a protocol, preregistration, or analysis plan exists, identify relevant departures and explain them. Exploratory analysis can be valuable when it is represented accurately rather than retrospectively described as a prior test.

Integrity across approaches

For quantitative studies, measurement decisions, exclusions, missing data, model assumptions, and robustness checks should be visible. For qualitative work, explain access, selection, interpretation, and the relationship between examples and the broader evidence. Reviews should make their source-selection approach clear. Conceptual and legal arguments should define terms, engage with competing positions, and identify the authority supporting their claims.

Institutional or policy recommendations should reflect the evidence and acknowledge implementation conditions. Authors should not present a proposed arrangement as evaluated practice or generalize from a setting without explaining the basis and limits of that inference.

Research records and responsible scrutiny

Retain appropriate data documentation, source records, analytical code, instruments, and permission records in accordance with institutional, legal, and ethical obligations. Editors may ask for supporting material when a specific question arises. Explain legitimate access restrictions and propose feasible forms of verification rather than treating confidentiality as an unexplained barrier.

Errors and concerns

Notify the journal promptly when a significant error is discovered in a submission or published article. Identify the affected material and explain the implications for findings and conclusions. The journal may request further records, independent assessment, or institutional findings. Changes to a published article’s status are communicated through linked notices.

Scholarly disagreement alone is not proof of misconduct. Reports should address a specific discrepancy in evidence, method, attribution, or representation. See Data Integrity and Complaints & Appeals.