Fairness, justice, and equity in research integrity guidelines across the world: A critical discourse analysis

Currently, Research Integrity (RI) initiatives are predominantly shaped by countries in the Global North 
(GN). Given the influence of GN funders and publishers on global research practices, RI standards set in 
the GN are frequently also applied in the Global South (GS). While the GS is increasingly involved in RI 
initiatives there still exist a risk of ethical imperialism, where GN ethical standards are imposed as 
universal. This study examines if and how ethical imperialism manifests in regulatory RI documents by 
assessing their treatment of research fairness using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). We conducted a 
scoping review to collect regional, national and international RI guidelines and codes of conduct. 
Conducting a search of grey literature and scientific literature, we included up to 65 codes that explicitly 
refer to responsible conduct of research or research integrity directed at researchers. Our analysis 
employs CDA to assess how fairness is constructed in these documents and analyze implicit and explicit 
power dynamics, silences, and assumptions. Our sample includes an uneven representation of countries: 
RI codes come mostly from European countries, with limited representation from Africa and Latin 
America. Only a few documents explicitly mention issues of injustice, such as knowledge and material 
extractivism, epistemic injustice, and socioeconomic inequities and precariousness. Few codes explicitly 
confront colonial hierarchies, but those that do tend to come from formerly colonized nations. Some 
documents acknowledge non-Western knowledge systems and alternative ethical frameworks, yet many 
still reflect hierarchies in their language, for instance, portraying indigenous and marginalized groups as 
passive agents and receivers of research rather than as groups capable of conducting research. While 
some RI codes integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles, their depth varies. Some 
documents employ "diversity" as an empty concept, while others propose concrete measures to counter 
discrimination and systemic inequalities. Finally, fairness is frequently reduced to procedural 
mechanisms, such as fair authorship, peer review, and misconduct investigations, which, while essential, 
risk treating fairness as bureaucratic compliance rather than a structural transformation of research. 
Overall, European RI frameworks tend to emphasize fairness without justice, reinforcing procedural rather 
than structural visions of fairness.