PHIG Policy Framework v1.2 · Policy 04 · Adopted 1 September 2026 · References: ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023 revised edition); Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement Art. 14 (Ethics and values) and Annex 5; Declaration of Helsinki; ICMJE Recommendations; COPE Core Practices
1. Purpose
PHIG’s work — research, country assessments, product verdicts, accreditation readiness reports, journal publishing, courses, data — rests on the trust that it is honest, reliable and accountable. This code binds the institute to the four principles of the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, which Horizon Europe makes mandatory and which PHIG adopts for all its activities whether or not EU-funded.
2. Principles
- Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in design, methodology, analysis and use of resources.
- Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
- Respect for colleagues, participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
- Accountability for research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts.
3. Good practice
- Design and methods: protocols registered before data collection where applicable; methods stated in full; limitations acknowledged.
- Data: collected, stored and documented so that results can be verified; raw data retained for ten years; data management plans for every funded project (see Open Science Policy).
- Sources: every figure traceable to its source — PHIG’s network rule “no source, no number”; estimates labelled as estimates; conflicting sources reconciled or reported.
- Authorship: follows the ICMJE criteria — substantial contribution, drafting or revising, approval, accountability; contributions stated; honorary and ghost authorship prohibited; AI tools disclosed and never listed as authors.
- Publication: results published whatever they show; negative results not suppressed; corrections and retractions issued promptly; preprints and open access encouraged.
- Peer review and assessment: confidential, impartial, timely, free of conflict, constructive; reviewers do not use what they review for their own advantage.
- Human participants: informed consent, ethics committee approval where required, Declaration of Helsinki, data minimisation, protection of vulnerable groups, benefit-sharing with communities studied.
- Product verdicts and assessments: follow the published Sheni Labs method; findings reported whatever they show; the client or submitter has no influence on content; right of reply guaranteed.
- Collaboration: agreements on roles, data, authorship and intellectual property made at the start; partners in low- and middle-income settings treated as equal partners.
- Training: every person engaged in research or assessment receives this code and training in integrity.
4. Misconduct
Fabrication (making up results), falsification (manipulating materials, processes, data or results), plagiarism (using others’ work and ideas without credit) are the most serious violations. Other unacceptable practices include manipulating authorship, re-publishing substantial parts of one’s own work without acknowledgement, citing selectively, withholding results, misrepresenting achievements, exaggerating importance, allowing funders to compromise independence, ignoring misconduct by others, and retaliating against those who report it.
5. Handling allegations
Allegations are received through the Whistleblowing Procedure, assessed and investigated with integrity, fairness, confidentiality and proportionality, with the person concerned heard. Outcomes range from correction of the record to retraction, removal from functions, termination, and notification of institutions, journals and funders. For EU-funded actions, confirmed misconduct is reported to the granting authority.
6. Responsibilities
The Board adopts the code; the Director and the editors of the Georgian Medical Journal, the directors of GILS and Sheni Labs and the Academy’s lead apply it in their domains; an Integrity Officer handles allegations.
7. Review
Reviewed every three years or when the ALLEA code is revised.
Part of the PHIG Policy Framework. Breaches and concerns may be reported under the Whistleblowing Procedure to info@accreditation.ge (subject “Confidential — integrity”).