Generative Artificial Intelligence (generative AI) poses both opportunities and risks for the integrity of research. Universities must guide researchers in using generative AI responsibly, and in navigating a complex regulatory landscape subject to rapid change. By drawing on the experiences of two Australian universities, we propose a framework to help institutions promote and facilitate the responsible use of generative AI. We provide guidance to help distil the diverse regulatory environment into a principles-based position statement. Further, we explain how a position statement can then serve as a foundation for initiatives in training, communications, infrastructure, and process change. Despite the growing body of literature about AI's impact on academic integrity for undergraduate students, there has been comparatively little attention on the impacts of generative AI for research integrity, and the vital role of institutions in helping to address those challenges. This paper underscores the urgency for research institutions to take action in this area and suggests a practical and adaptable framework for so doing.

At the World Conference on Research Integrity in June 2022, we held a symposium session to discuss whether sharing information on research integrity and publishing ethics cases seen at a publisher could inform the training and support that researchers need from institutions. Here we reflect on the data and views presented and the discussion that followed. We recommend that all stakeholders involved in promoting research integrity pursue the following four goals to reshape research culture: adoption of a shared granular taxonomy that emphasises research quality; transparent reporting from publishers and institutions on the number and type of research integrity and publishing ethics cases seen annually; delivery of research integrity and publishing ethics training with emphasis on research quality; adoption of open research initiatives and the creation of healthy, inclusive and diverse work environments.

There is a prevalent myth, even in scholarly literature, that peer review was born, fully formed, with the advent of the first scientific journals in the seventeenth century. Recent work has shown this to be false. Many of the practices we call peer review are much newer-as new as the second half of the twentieth century. Some essential elements of peer review, however, are much older than the seventeenth century-a fact that has been neglected, both by those who have propagated the myth and also by those who have more recently sought to dispel it. This paper provides three examples of scholarly review from history. The first is an example of editorial review in ancient Rome. The second is an example of post-publication peer review involving scholia, beginning in the fourth century. The third is an example of pre-publication review by censors in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. I join with those authors who seek to bust the myth about the origins of scholarly review but do so by extending their work in the opposite direction chronologically. What we now give the name peer review is really a group of things that has evolved over time. If we want to learn from the history of scholarly review, then we should take a broader and longer view.

This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review. The importance of providing research integrity training in these areas is now widely accepted; however, it remains an open question how best to conduct this training. For this reason, it is vital for institutions, journals, and peak bodies to share learnings. We describe how we have collaborated across our institution to develop training that supports QUT's principles and which is in line with insights from contemporary research on best practices in learning design, universal design, and faculty involvement. We also discuss how we have refined these courses iteratively over time, and consider potential mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of the courses more formally.

This handout provides a broad conceptual subway map of the world of publication, to support the Authorship and Publication training provided by QUT Library and Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. More details are available via: http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/training/appr.jsp

“Research Data” is to be the third in a series of research training events developed by QUT Library and the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. Its development follows the successful format of previous courses, “Authorship and Publication” and “Journal Peer Review”. It will be a two hour blended learning course, comprised of lightning talks, animations, interviews, and activities, structured around the research data lifecycle.The poster shares our progress in developing this novel training, and promoting a culture of strong research data management practices at QUT in the context of a new Research Data Management Strategy. This strategy is an institutional response to federal government research agendas, reviews, initiatives and supporting roadmaps. Research data management continues to be part of the multifaceted and changing landscape of eResearch, and we believe it is important that institutions share learnings that contribute towards best practice.