Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse. Both in terms of diagnostics and in terms of therapy, the tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on strategies of individualisation (detecting and punishing individual deviance). Other contributions to the integrity debate, however, focus more explicitly on environmental factors, e.g. on the quality and resilience of research ecosystems, on institutional rather than individual responsibilities, and on the quality of the research culture. One example of this is the Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. This editorial to the LSSP thematic series (article collection) entitled Addressing integrity challenges in research: the institutional dimension invites authors to contribute to the research integrity debate. Notably, we are interested in submissions addressing issues such as institutional responsibilities, changes in the research climate, duties of research managers and research performing or research funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) as well as new approaches to integrity education.

近几十年来，无论是在学术界还是在政策讨论中，对研究诚信的关注和兴趣都显着增加。无论是在诊断方面还是在治疗方面，诚信话语的趋势都是关注个体化策略（检测和惩罚个人偏差）。然而，对诚信辩论的其他贡献则更明确地关注环境因素，例如研究生态系统的质量和复原力、机构而非个人的责任以及研究文化的质量。波恩 PRINTEGER 声明就是一个例子。 LSSP 主题系列（文章集）的这篇题为“解决研究中的诚信挑战：制度层面”的社论邀请作者为研究诚信辩论做出贡献。值得注意的是，我们对解决机构责任、研究环境变化、研究管理者和研究执行或研究资助组织（RPO 和 RFO）的职责以及诚信教育新方法等问题的提交内容感兴趣。