Good fit
- Universities and colleges strengthening research governance
- Research offices, ethics committees, libraries and IQAC teams
- Institutions preparing policy, training or audit-ready evidence controls
For universities, colleges and research offices
Institutional Research Integrity
Build a research system that can be explained, evidenced and defended — from journal selection and authorship to data handling, ethics and corrections.
Request an integrity diagnostic →
The buyer problem
What needs to change
Research integrity often fails through disconnected routines rather than one dramatic breach: unclear authorship rules, weak journal checks, informal data handling, inconsistent AI use and no auditable correction path.
Cost of inaction
Left unresolved, those gaps can produce avoidable retractions, disputed authorship, unreliable institutional reporting, reputational harm and repeated remediation work.
Fit before scope
Who this is for — and who it is not for
Not a fit
- Teams seeking a cosmetic policy without operational change
- Anyone asking us to conceal misconduct or manufacture records
- Individuals seeking ghostwriting, authorship placement or guaranteed publication
Process outcomes
What the engagement is designed to leave behind
These are defined working outputs and capability improvements — not guarantees of an external decision or result.
A documented picture of current controls and priority gaps
A practical integrity framework aligned to the institution's actual workflows
Clear ownership, evidence requirements and escalation routes
A sequenced implementation plan that can be reviewed internally
Exact deliverables
What lands on your desk
- Research-integrity diagnostic and risk register
- Policy and workflow gap analysis
- Journal-verification, authorship, AI-use and correction controls
- Evidence checklist, responsibility map and 90-day action plan
- Closing briefing for the responsible institutional team
Client inputs
What we need from you
- Current policies, forms and committee terms of reference
- A sample of research, publication and ethics workflows
- Named process owners and known recurring problem areas
- Access to relevant non-sensitive records in an agreed format
Method
A documented route from problem to evidence
Map
Identify the decision points, records and people involved in the current research lifecycle.
Test
Review controls against visible evidence, not policy wording alone.
Prioritise
Separate immediate integrity risks from longer-term capability improvements.
Embed
Deliver usable controls, ownership and a review rhythm rather than a static report.
Indicative investment
The range is a guide; the written scope fixes the fee
Starts at ₹1,00,000 for institution-wide advisory. Focused research-design reviews may fall within the published ₹15,000–₹1,00,000 research-consulting range.
Every engagement is scoped in writing against objectives, inputs, methods, deliverables, review points and exclusions before work begins.
What changes the price
- Number of faculties, centres or workflows in scope
- Volume and condition of existing policies and records
- Whether new policy drafting, training or implementation support is required
- On-site requirements; remote delivery is the default unless agreed otherwise
Ethical boundaries
What Gurjas will not deliver
- No concealment, alteration or retrospective manufacture of evidence
- No legal opinion, disciplinary adjudication or forensic investigation
- No guaranteed accreditation, publication or regulatory outcome
- No use of confidential client material in public AI systems
Relevant proof
Credentials and methods you can verify
FAQ
Questions to settle before a fit call
Is this a misconduct investigation?
No. It is a governance and control review. Suspected misconduct requiring legal, disciplinary or forensic handling should be referred to appropriately authorised specialists.
Can you write our research-integrity policy?
Policy drafting can be included after the diagnostic, but it must reflect real ownership, workflows and evidence. We do not provide a generic policy presented as implementation.
Will you train faculty and research staff?
Training can be scoped as a second phase and tied to the control gaps identified in the diagnostic.
A clear first step
Start with the problem, evidence available and decision deadline.
Use the structured intake form. We usually respond within two working days with fit, missing inputs and the next sensible scope.