How Transparent Should Institutions be? Balancing Ethical Principles in Research Misconduct Investigations

Insufficient transparency in institutional investigations of research misconduct has been widely identified as a systemic ethical problem, undermining trust in research governance. At the same time, demands for greater transparency raise legitimate concerns about privacy and reputational harm. This article examines how transparency in research misconduct investigations can be ethically justified and practically implemented without collapsing into either institutional secrecy or maximal public disclosure. Drawing on qualitative data from the BEYOND public consultation, including 31 in-depth interviews and 103 open-text survey responses from diverse stakeholder groups, we analyse perceptions of institutional transparency using the method of reflective equilibrium. The analysis is anchored in four ethical principles articulated in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA): reliability, honesty, accountability, and respect. Our findings indicate broad consensus that the current status quo which is characterised by opacity, delayed communication, and limited contextualisation, is not acceptable, while unrestricted public disclosure is widely rejected, particularly during ongoing investigations. Stakeholder intuitions reveal persistent tensions between accountability and respect, especially when institutions invoke reputation protection to justify restricted transparency. We argue that transparency should be conceptualised as a process-oriented and context-sensitive ethical practice rather than a fixed level of disclosure. To support institutional decision making, we propose illustrative examples demonstrating how ethical principles can be balanced in concrete transparency policies.