Cultivating Virtue-Based Research Integrity

A 30-Question Assessment Based on the Righteous Code of Conduct for Scholars

Inspired by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2023) and the VIRT2UE virtue-based ethics training programme (Evans et al., 2021; Tomić et al., 2022)

Instructions: Select the best answer for each question based on the principles of Righteous Diligence, Righteous Truthfulness, Righteous Care, and Righteous Stewardship as defined in the Righteous Code of Conduct for Scholars.

The examination moves beyond rule-based compliance to assess your inner commitment to the virtues that define a righteous scholar. There is no punishment in low scores—only an invitation to deeper formation.

Part 1: Research Misconduct (Questions 1–7)

Question 1

Topic: Fabrication

A doctoral researcher faces intense pressure to publish findings to secure their position. After numerous experiments fail to produce statistically significant results, they create a complete dataset that perfectly supports their hypothesis.

Question: According to the virtue of Righteous Truthfulness, what is the primary reason this action is a fundamental violation of the scholar’s identity?

(A) It violates institutional research policies

(B) It betrays the very reality the scholar swore to observe, corrupting their relationship with truth itself

(D) It delays the progress of science by publishing false findings

Question 2

Topic: Falsification

A research team finds several data points that contradict their hypothesis. A senior researcher suggests removing these points from the final dataset without mentioning their existence in the published paper, stating, “They’re clearly anomalies that confuse our narrative.”

Question: The virtue of Righteous Truthfulness views the manipulation of conflicting data points as:

(A) A standard practice to improve clarity of presentation

(B) Corruption of evidence that misleads the community for personal or professional gain

(D) Acceptable if the hypothesis is ultimately correct

Question 3

Topic: Plagiarism

A junior researcher, struggling to articulate a complex theoretical framework, takes several paragraphs from a senior scholar’s published work, changes a few words, and incorporates them into their own manuscript without citation.

Question: According to Righteous Truthfulness, why is plagiarism considered a profound moral violation rather than merely a procedural error?

(A) It could lead to legal consequences for copyright infringement

(B) It erases a colleague’s intellectual existence and steals their identity as a knowledge creator

(D) It violates journal submission policies

Question 4

Topic: Questionable Research Practices (p-hacking)

A research team runs multiple statistical analyses on a dataset. They report only the tests that produce statistically significant results, while omitting the non-significant findings from their publication.

Question: According to Righteous Truthfulness, what is the problem with selectively reporting only favorable statistical results?

(A) It increases the likelihood of journal rejection

(B) It distorts the scientific record by hiding evidence that challenges the researcher’s preferred conclusion

(D) It lengthens the publication process

Question 5

Topic: Whistleblowing

A junior member of a research team witnesses a senior investigator fabricating data. They fear retaliation, which is common in their competitive field, but believe the misconduct undermines the integrity of their shared work.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, what is the righteous scholar’s duty when witnessing misconduct?

(A) To remain silent to protect their career prospects

(B) To report observed misconduct, recognizing that silence enables harm and betrays the scholarly community

(D) To leave the laboratory and avoid further involvement

Question 6

Topic: Responding to Suspected Misconduct

A postdoctoral researcher finds inconsistencies suggesting that a close colleague may have fabricated portions of a published study. They are unsure how to proceed without damaging relationships or making false accusations.

Question: The virtue of Righteous Stewardship suggests that when integrity concerns arise, the righteous scholar should:

(A) Immediately share suspicions broadly to ensure accountability

(B) Gather relevant information and seek guidance from appropriate institutional mentors while maintaining confidentiality

(D) Confront the colleague alone without external consultation

Question 7

Topic: Consequences of Misconduct

When a scholar engages in fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, the consequences extend beyond the individual actor.

Question: According to Righteous Care and Righteous Stewardship, why must the righteous scholar consider the broader impacts of misconduct?

(A) Because misconduct primarily affects the individual’s career prospects

(B) Because harms radiate outward—damaging colleagues, institutions, scientific integrity, and public trust in knowledge itself

(D) Because funding agencies will revoke grants

Part 2: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing, and Ownership (Questions 8–13)

Question 8

Topic: Data Sharing

A research team has just published findings from a study funded by public money. The data could be valuable for other researchers seeking to verify results or explore new questions.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, what is the scholar’s duty regarding research data after publication?

(A) To retain exclusive control over the data for future publications

(B) To share data appropriately as an act of service to the scholarly community, recognizing that hoarding data is a form of intellectual pride

(D) To share only upon receiving legal threats

Question 9

Topic: Handling Disconfirming Evidence

A researcher’s data contain several outliers that contradict their central hypothesis. The majority of data points support the expected conclusion.

Question: How does Righteous Truthfulness guide the scholar’s handling of disconfirming evidence?

(A) Excluding outliers is justified if the majority of data support the hypothesis

(B) Transparency requires reporting all results while honestly acknowledging anomalies, for truth is served by full disclosure

(D) Only statistically significant findings merit publication

Question 10

Topic: Data Retention

A research team is preparing to archive their study data. Some members argue that storage is costly and that the data are “no longer needed” now that the paper is published.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, why should scholars retain their primary data?

(A) To maintain leverage in future authorship negotiations

(B) Because responsible stewardship includes preserving the evidentiary basis of claims so others may verify and build upon one’s work

(D) Because funding agreements technically require it

Question 11

Topic: Research Design and Pre-registration

A research team is designing a new study. Some members prefer to keep the analysis plan flexible so they can explore interesting patterns in the data.

Question: How does Righteous Diligence inform the scholar’s approach to research planning?

(A) Flexible analysis plans are preferable because they accommodate unexpected discoveries

(B) Careful advance planning, including pre-registration when appropriate, demonstrates reverence for truth and protects against self-deception

(D) Only novice researchers need detailed protocols

Question 12

Topic: Informed Consent

A researcher is recruiting participants for a study. They consider whether to fully disclose certain study procedures, fearing that full disclosure might reduce enrollment.

Question: According to Righteous Care, what is the scholar’s duty toward research participants?

(A) Full disclosure is optional if the research has social value

(B) The righteous scholar treats participants as ends in themselves, respecting their autonomy by providing complete information and honoring voluntary consent

(D) The study’s goals outweigh participant autonomy

Question 13

Topic: Data Ownership

A doctoral student has completed data collection for their dissertation project using university resources. Upon graduation, they wish to take all raw data with them to a new institution.

Question: How do Righteous Stewardship and Righteous Care inform the scholar’s understanding of data ownership?

(A) All data belong exclusively to the student who collected them

(B) Understanding institutional policies and fair attribution ensures that data serve the community while respecting contributors’ rights

(D) Data have no owner once published

Part 3: Authorship and Publication Practices (Questions 14–18)

Question 14

Topic: Authorship Criteria

A senior researcher provided funding for a study, reviewed the final manuscript, and supervised the laboratory but made no intellectual contribution to the study design, analysis, or interpretation. They request to be listed as first author.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, what is the proper basis for authorship?

(A) Any contribution, including funding or lab oversight, justifies authorship

(B) Authorship requires substantial intellectual contribution; anything less constitutes theft of credit from genuine contributors

(D) Editorial assistance alone merits co-authorship

Question 15

Topic: Gift Authorship

A department chair who provided no intellectual input to a study asks a junior faculty member to be included as a co-author “as a courtesy” to strengthen the department’s reputation.

Question: Righteous Stewardship views the inclusion of a “gift author” as:

(A) A harmless professional courtesy that builds relationships

(B) A violation of the steward’s duty of fair attribution that exploits the mentor’s position for mutual career advancement rather than genuine scholarly contribution

(D) Required when senior researchers request inclusion

Question 16

Topic: Duplicate Publication

A researcher under pressure to increase their publication count submits the same manuscript to two journals simultaneously, hoping to secure a quicker acceptance from whichever responds first.

Question: According to Righteous Diligence, why is duplicate submission problematic?

(A) It increases the likelihood of detection and rejection

(B) It prioritizes quantity and speed over scholarly integrity, violating the duty to treat editors and reviewers with honesty

(D) It only harms the researcher’s own reputation

Question 17

Topic: Reporting Negative Results

After months of work, a researcher finds no evidence supporting their hypothesis. The planned analyses produced null results that do not advance the researcher’s career goals.

Question: Righteous Truthfulness demands that null results be reported because:

(A) Negative results rarely matter to the scientific community

(B) Complete reporting serves truth and prevents others from wasting resources pursuing dead ends, embodying the scholar’s duty to truth over career advancement

(D) Co-authors demand inclusion of all data

Question 18

Topic: Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

A researcher owns significant stock in a pharmaceutical company whose drug they are evaluating. They believe their scientific objectivity is unaffected by this financial interest.

Question: According to Righteous Truthfulness, what is the scholar’s duty regarding potential conflicts of interest?

(A) Conflicts need only be disclosed if they actually bias results

(B) Full transparency about potential sources of bias demonstrates respect for readers and allows them to judge findings appropriately

(D) Only large conflicts exceeding a certain monetary threshold require disclosure

Part 4: Peer Review (Questions 19–21)

Question 19

Topic: Reviewer Confidentiality

A reviewer reads a confidential manuscript containing a novel methodology that could significantly advance their own research program. No one would know if they adapted the method for their next paper.

Question: According to Righteous Care and Righteous Stewardship, how should the righteous reviewer treat unpublished ideas encountered during peer review?

(A) Adaptation is acceptable if the original source is eventually cited

(B) Respecting confidentiality and refraining from using unpublished ideas for personal advantage is a duty of collegial respect

(D) Only verbatim copying is prohibited; adapting methods is allowed

Question 20

Topic: Reviewer Objectivity and Recusal

A reviewer receives a manuscript that reaches conclusions directly contradicting findings from their own unpublished study. The reviewer believes they can still provide an objective assessment.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, what should the righteous reviewer do when recognizing a conflict of interest?

(A) Proceed with review while striving for objectivity

(B) Recuse themselves, recognizing that the appearance of bias and risk of unconscious partiality require disclosure of potential conflicts

(D) Recommend rejection without written review

Question 21

Topic: Tone in Peer Review

A reviewer finds serious methodological flaws in a manuscript that require substantial revision before publication.

Question: According to Righteous Care, how should the righteous reviewer communicate criticism?

(A) With harshness to prepare authors for difficult revisions

(B) Honest about flaws but kind in tone, remembering that the goal is improvement of truth, not destruction of a rival

(D) Focusing only on positive aspects of the manuscript

Part 5: Collaborative Science (Questions 22–23)

Question 22

Topic: Collaboration Expectations

A multidisciplinary research team is forming to pursue a complex project. Some members suggest it is “premature” to discuss authorship and credit before the science begins.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, when should collaborators clarify expectations about credit and responsibilities?

(A) After data collection, when contributions are clearer

(B) At the project’s outset, because clear communication of expectations prevents later conflicts and honors each contributor’s dignity

(D) Only when disputes arise

Question 23

Topic: Power Discrepancies in Collaboration

A postdoctoral researcher is contributing substantially to a project led by a senior, well-known professor. The junior researcher worries that their contributions will not be recognized when authorship is determined.

Question: According to Righteous Care, what should the junior scholar do when facing power discrepancies in collaboration?

(A) Accept whatever credit is offered to avoid conflict

(B) Seek to discuss expectations early while recognizing that the senior scholar bears stewardship responsibility for fair treatment

(D) Refuse to collaborate with senior scientists

Part 6: Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities (Questions 24–26)

Question 24

Topic: Mentoring as a Moral Duty

A busy principal investigator has several graduate students. They provide minimal guidance, expecting students to “figure things out” independently while focusing on their own research priorities.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship, what is the mentor’s primary responsibility to trainees?

(A) Maximizing trainee publication output

(B) Modeling virtuous conduct and fostering professional development as a sacred duty, not merely a technical obligation

(D) Minimizing time spent on mentoring to focus on “real” research

Question 25

Topic: Trainee Responsibilities

A graduate student observes what appears to be data manipulation by a more senior lab member. They fear speaking up might harm their relationship with the laboratory.

Question: According to Righteous Stewardship and Righteous Truthfulness, what is the trainee’s responsibility when encountering integrity concerns?

(A) Silence is acceptable for trainees who lack power in the hierarchy

(B) The righteous trainee works with integrity and communicates concerns, recognizing that stewardship is shared across all members of the scholarly community

(D) Trainees should defer all ethical questions to their mentors

Question 26

Topic: Power Boundaries

A principal investigator requires graduate students to complete personal tasks unrelated to research and suggests that career advancement depends on “loyalty” rather than scientific merit.

Question: According to Righteous Care, how should the righteous mentor understand boundaries in the trainee relationship?

(A) Personal requests are acceptable if balanced with research training

(B) The mentor-trainee relationship requires clear professional boundaries that respect the trainee’s dignity and autonomy

(D) Boundaries are less important than research productivity

Part 7: Foundations of Research Integrity (Questions 27–30)

Question 27

Topic: Purpose of Integrity Training

A university is designing a new research integrity training program. Some administrators focus on creating checklists and rules to prevent misconduct.

Question: According to the Righteous Framework, what is the ultimate purpose of integrity education?

(A) To create enforceable rules with clear punishments for violations

(B) To cultivate inner righteous motivation, moving scholars from asking “What am I allowed to do?” to asking “What kind of scholar am I becoming?”

(D) To increase publication rates through better compliance

Question 28

Topic: Virtue vs. Rule-Based Approaches

A research institution has comprehensive policies covering every conceivable ethical violation. Yet some researchers still cut corners when they believe no one is watching.

Question: According to the Righteous Framework, what is the limitation of relying solely on rules for research integrity?

(A) Rules are generally sufficient for most situations

(B) External rules alone cannot guarantee integrity; what is needed is the cultivation of inner righteous motivation that asks not just “What is prohibited?” but “What is excellent?”

(D) Rules are unnecessary for virtuous researchers

Question 29

Topic: Intellectual Humility and Correction

A researcher realizes that a methodological error renders their previously published conclusions invalid. Correcting the record will be embarrassing and may harm their standing.

Question: According to Righteous Truthfulness, how should the righteous scholar respond to discovering an error in their published work?

(A) Correct the record transparently, receiving correction as a gift to truth rather than a threat to reputation

(B) Ignore the error to protect their career

(D) Publish a corrected version without acknowledging the original error

Question 30

Topic: Institutional Culture

A research institution is evaluating its approach to promoting integrity. Some leaders advocate for stricter punishments and more frequent audits. Others suggest cultural change.

Question: According to the Righteous Framework (Part Three: The Righteous Research Environment), what kind of institution cultivates genuine integrity?

(A) An institution that focuses exclusively on punitive measures and surveillance

(B) An institution that creates a culture where speaking truth is safe, integrity is rewarded, and righteous formation is prioritized over mere compliance

(D) An institution that minimizes integrity training to avoid burdening researchers

ANSWER KEY

The Righteous Scholar Examination

Question	Correct Answer
1	B
2	B
3	B
4	B
5	B
6	B
7	B
8	B
9	B
10	B
11	B
12	B
13	B
14	B
15	B
16	B
17	B
18	B
19	B
20	B
21	B
22	B
23	B
24	B
25	B
26	B
27	B
28	B
29	B
30	B

Scoring Interpretation

Score Range	Interpretation
28–30 correct	Righteous Scholar — You embody the virtues of the Righteous Framework consistently.
24–27 correct	Growing in Righteousness — You understand the virtues well and are developing consistent application.
18–23 correct	Awakening Scholar — You have foundational awareness; continued formation will deepen your righteous motivation.
Below 18	Seeking Scholar — Use this examination not as judgment but as a map for your journey toward righteous scholarship.

“The righteous scholar does not ask, ‘What am I allowed to do?’ They ask, ‘What kind of scholar am I becoming?’”

— The Righteous Code of Conduct for Scholars

References

Academic Sources Supporting the Righteous Framework

ALLEA – All European Academies. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (2023 rev. ed.). Berlin: ALLEA. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2008). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Evans, N., Marušić, A., Foeger, N., Lofstrom, E., van Hoof, M., Vrijhoef-Welten, S., Inguaggiato, G., Dierickx, K., Bouter, L., & Widdershoven, G. (2021). Virtue-based ethics and integrity of research: Train-the-trainer programme for upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (VIRT2UE). Research Ideas and Outcomes, 7, e68258. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.7.e68258

Evans, N., Schmolmueller, A., Stolper, M., Inguaggiato, G., Hooghiemstra, A., Tokalic, R., Pizzolato, D., Foeger, N., Marušić, A., van Hoof, M., Lanzerath, D., Molewijk, B., Dierickx, K., & Widdershoven, G. (2023). VIRT2UE: A European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity. Research Ethics, 19(3), 174701612311612. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231161267

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Koali, S., Khasoane, N., & Mongezi, M. (2024). Promoting research integrity through the lens of virtue ethics and deontological approach. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2024.v17i2.1671

Lipworth, W., et al. (2023). The fragility of scientific rigour and integrity in “sped up science”: Research misconduct, bias, and hype in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 20(4), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10289-w

MacFarlane, B. (2008). Researching with integrity: The ethics of academic enquiry. Routledge.

MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1981)

Resnik, D. B. (2012). Ethical virtues in scientific research. Accountability in Research, 19(6), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.728908

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.

Theunissen, B. (2024). Virtues and vocation: An historical perspective on scientific integrity in the twenty-first century. Endeavour, 48(1), 100915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2024.100915

Tomić, V., Buljan, I., & Marušić, A. (2022). Virtue-based ethics in research integrity training: Experiences from the VIRT2UE project. Accountability in Research, 29(8), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2128340

Williams, B. (2006). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Routledge. (Original work published 1985)

Question	Correct Answer
1	B
2	B
3	B
4	B
5	B
6	B
7	B
8	B
9	B
10	B
11	B
12	B
13	B
14	B
15	B
16	B
17	B
18	B
19	B
20	B
21	B
22	B
23	B
24	B
25	B
26	B
27	B
28	B
29	B
30	B

Question	Correct Answer
1	B
2	B
3	B
4	B
5	B
6	B
7	B
8	B
9	B
10	B
11	B
12	B
13	B
14	B
15	B
16	B
17	B
18	B
19	B
20	B
21	B
22	B
23	B
24	B
25	B
26	B
27	B
28	B
29	B
30	B

The Righteous Scholar Examination

Cultivating Virtue-Based Research Integrity

Part 1: Research Misconduct (Questions 1–7)

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Part 2: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing, and Ownership (Questions 8–13)

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

Question 11

Question 12

Question 13

Part 3: Authorship and Publication Practices (Questions 14–18)

Question 14

Question 15

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

Part 4: Peer Review (Questions 19–21)

Question 19

Question 20

Question 21

Part 5: Collaborative Science (Questions 22–23)

Question 22

Question 23

Part 6: Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities (Questions 24–26)

Question 24

Question 25

Question 26

Part 7: Foundations of Research Integrity (Questions 27–30)

Question 27

Question 28

Question 29

Question 30

ANSWER KEY

The Righteous Scholar Examination

Scoring Interpretation

References

Academic Sources Supporting the Righteous Framework

Recommended for Further Reading

Question	Correct Answer
1	B
2	B
3	B
4	B
5	B
6	B
7	B
8	B
9	B
10	B
11	B
12	B
13	B
14	B
15	B
16	B
17	B
18	B
19	B
20	B
21	B
22	B
23	B
24	B
25	B
26	B
27	B
28	B
29	B
30	B