Along with “authenticity,” the criterion of “integrity” is used to evaluate and inscribe all World Cultural and Natural Heritage sites. However, ongoing debates in scholarly, organisational, and political circles reveal much confusion in the interpretation and application of integrity. This confusion is compounded by its common reference as “visual integrity” in World Heritage Committee discussions and inscriptions, despite the absence of this term in the Operational Guidelines that govern these matters. The studyis uncovering the historical connection between integrity and theories on the unity of a work of art, rooted in normative and homogenizing aesthetics. Furthermore, this paper analyzes two exemplary applications of integrity in the inscriptions of two World Cultural Heritage sites: Mbanza Kongo in Angola and Writing-on-Stone in Canada. Through analysis, the current application of integrity is associated with the perpetuation of a homogenizing lens through which heritage sites are visualized.

Michael Jensen’s late-career work on integrity is often interpreted as a departure from agency theory or as an attempt to introduce ethical considerations into a positive framework. This paper argues instead that integrity can be reconstructed as an extension internal to agency theory itself. Drawing on the Jensen and Meckling decomposition of agency costs, integrity is modelled as a bonding cost; a self-imposed constraint that raises the private cost of opportunistic behaviour and thereby economises on monitoring and reduces residual loss. Incorporating Buchanan’s constitutional-stage logic, the analysis shows that integrity relocates rational optimisation to the choice of rules rather than to particular transactions. Integrity is further classified as an informal institution whose effectiveness depends on decentralised enforcement and institutional context. The paper concludes that integrity is neither an ethical supplement nor a scalable substitute for formal governance, but a bounded informal bonding mechanism whose effectiveness attenuates with organisational scale.

This article examines national human rights institutions (NHRIs) as part of the evolving fourth-branch considerations within contemporary constitutionalism. Critically engaging with recent scholarship on fourth-branch institutions, it argues that, in general, NHRIs satisfy the criteria of double constitutionalization – as constitutionally entrenched entities and as protectors of constitutional rights. Through comparative analysis of ombuds institutions and human rights commissions, the article evaluates their mandate and functions against the existing criteria for fourth-branch actorness, particularly focusing on determining norm breaches and interpreting norms. The article argues that while NHRIs’ constitutional design and unique international peer review accreditation suggest significant independence, their de facto performance often depends on volatile political and institutional environments. The empirical discussion in the article exposes how appointment procedures, budgetary control and political capture can undermine their constitutional promise. The article concludes that NHRIs occupy a liminal constitutional space – formally insulated from party politics but deeply implicated in high politics – and that their credibility rests on maintaining a precarious balance between independence and accountability. In doing so, it advances the theoretical and comparative understanding of NHRIs as core protectors of constitutional rights within the broader fourth-branch paradigm.

This paper analyzes how social venture capitalists evaluate the integrity of social entrepreneurs. Based on an experiment with 40 social venture capitalists and 40 students, we investigate how five attributes of the entrepreneur contribute to the assessment of integrity. These attributes are the entrepreneur’s personal experience, professional background, voluntary accountability efforts, reputation and awards/fellowships granted to the entrepreneur. Results indicate that social venture capitalists focus largely on voluntary accountability efforts of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneur’s reputation when judging integrity. For an overall positive judgment of integrity, it seems to be sufficient if either voluntary accountability efforts or reputation of the entrepreneur are high. By comparing social venture capitalists with students, we show that experience leads to a simpler decision model focusing on key attributes.

The Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM), a journal founded with an Irish identity, has progressed over four decades into a journal of both national and international relevance. The IJPM, now the official scientific journal of the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, works collaboratively with many stakeholders including policymakers, those working in mental health services and those who have experienced mental illness. The journal aims to publish scientific literature and research which will help service users, clinicians and mental health services, and which can inform mental health policy. In this editorial the outgoing and incoming Editors-in-Chief reflect on how the journal has developed in recent times, and how the journal can progress at a time of societal change and technological advancement.

Recent changes instituted by the US government pose a sinister threat to the integrity of science worldwide. We roundly refute the many contrived assertions that have been unfairly levelled against scientists and their natural philosophy and implore them to champion the apodictic principles of science.

Recent changes to US research funding are having far-reaching consequences that imperil the integrity of science and the provision of care to vulnerable populations. Resisting these changes, the BJPsych Portfolio reaffirms its commitment to publishing mental science and advancing psychiatric knowledge that improves the mental health of one and all.

The federal government has a long history of trying to find the right balance in supporting scientific and medical research while protecting the public and other researchers from potential harms. To date, this balance has been generally calibrated differently across contexts – including in clinical care, human subjects research, and research integrity. New challenges continue to face this disparate model of regulation, including novel Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools. Because of potential increases in unintentional fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism using GenAI – and challenges establishing both these errors and intentionality in retrospect – this article argues that we should instead move toward a system that sets accepted community standards for the use of GenAI in research as prospective requirements.

Our national scientific enterprise has a crisis of reproducibility. While this phenomenon has many contributors, one is the proliferation of data manipulation. Data manipulation may range from seemingly innocuous to brazen to the point of verging on criminal. This latter category has recently received more attention, stimulating a debate about the handling of such unpleasant matters. We co-authors have instigated and interacted with numerous research integrity investigations and believe the current model of handling potential violations of research integrity standards is deeply flawed. Institution-led investigations are fundamentally conflicted because of the potential for institutional reputational damage and financial harm from a finding of research misconduct. Concerns are often handled with secrecy, lethargy, and limited technical analysis. Integrity lapses are frequently handled with a lack of openness, accountability and proportional consequences, which have weakened public trust in the scientific enterprise.

We propose that research integrity violations of substantial scale should be independently investigated by appropriately resourced specialists. Such investigations should be completed within a time frame that facilitates meaningful corrective action when required or exoneration of the accused party when appropriate; completion of an investigation should rarely extend beyond one year and the results of the investigation should be made public.

We quite often play the game of wondering what our older self would say to our younger self. Usually by way of advice. Mistakes to avoid. This seems true. But here it is suggested that our younger self may have important things to say of a similar sort to our older self, and in a sense can by our remembering when older what we were like when we were younger and what mattered to us. The process of wondering what might be said goes both ways.

This paper analyses the performance of the Australian and New Zealand Satellite-Based Augmentation System (Aus-NZ SBAS) test-bed to evaluate its use in civil aviation applications with a focus on dual-frequency multi-constellation (DFMC) signals. The Aus-NZ SBAS test-bed performance metrics were determined using kinematic data recorded in flight across a variety of environments and operational conditions. A total of 14 tests adding up to 32 h of flight were evaluated. Flight test data were processed in both the L1 SBAS and DFMC SBAS modes supported by the test-bed broadcasts. The performance results are reviewed regarding accuracy, availability and integrity metrics and compared with the requirement thresholds defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for Precision Approach (PA) flight operations. The experimentation performed does not allow continuity assessment as specified in the standard due to a long-term statistical requirement and inherent limitations imposed by the reference station network. Analysis of flight test results shows that DFMC SBAS provides several performance improvements over single-frequency SBAS, tightening both horizontal and vertical protection levels and resulting in greater service availability during the approach.

What shapes voter perceptions of election outcomes? Recent disputes in Malawi and Kenya highlight the vulnerability of local vote counts to accusations of malfeasance, which often generate negative public perceptions of vote reliability. Election monitoring in these countries is thought to crucially affect both the quality of the election and voters’ perceptions of the same. To date, most research on this topic has focused on the effect of non-partisan electoral observers. However, in many countries, two other interest groups also monitor the vote-counting process: political party agents and government election officials. Does the presence of these actors also affect voter perceptions of election integrity? To answer this question, I conducted a conjoint experiment in Malawi and Kenya in which voters evaluate the reliability of vote counts from hypothetical polling stations where the presence of party agents, non-partisan observers, and election officials is varied. I find that the presence of each of these groups does indeed shape voter perceptions: voters are more likely to view vote counts as reliable when they are co-signed by a party agent, election official, or non-partisan observer. Further, these preferences persist regardless of the voters’ own party affiliation or trust in electoral institutions.