Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625

Felix Althaus, Carla Brigitte Susan Kohl, Clovis Mariano Faggion

{"title":"An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences.","authors":"Felix Althaus, Carla Brigitte Susan Kohl, Clovis Mariano Faggion","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The proliferation of predatory journals (PJs) poses challenges to the integrity and reliability of scientific research. This study provides a comprehensive overview of studies assessing predatory practices in the biomedical sciences and the evaluation of their methodologies.Methods: We systematically searched three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. We included review-type studies published in English that assessed PJs within biomedical fields. We analyzed the characteristics of PJs, and methodological quality using the advice of \"a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews\" (AMSTAR-2) and the Cochrane Handbook.Results: Fifty articles were included in the analysis. The first review of PJs was published in 2015. More than 80% of the reviews were published from 2018 onwards. The studies most often focused on the lack of an adequate peer review process (33/50), time to publication (30/50), and level of article processing charge (27/50). Concerning methodological quality, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; 30 of the studies did not meet any of them.Conclusions: The methodological quality of the existing reviews was rather low, and the results of the present study may help researchers improve the methodological quality of future reviews on this topic.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143494471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Outcomes of faculty training aimed at improving how allegations of research misconduct are handled.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2468964

Courtney Karmelita, Bridget Carruthers, Sanjana Gautam, Amanda Ferrara

引用次数: 0

Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2465621

Paul Sebo, Melissa Sebo

{"title":"Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science.","authors":"Paul Sebo, Melissa Sebo","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2465621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2465621","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of metadata for retracted articles in Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS).Methods: Twenty general internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 2 were randomly selected. RWD, PubMed, and WoS were used to retrieve all retracted articles published in these journals. Eight metadata variables were examined: journal, title, type of article, author(s), country/countries of affiliation, year of publication, year of retraction, and reason(s) for retraction (assessed only for RWD, as this information was unavailable in PubMed and WoS). Descriptive analyses were conducted to document errors across databases.Results: Thirty-five retractions were identified, and 280 metadata entries (35 × 8) were analyzed. RWD contained the most metadata errors, affecting 16 articles and 20 metadata entries, including seven errors in year of publication, six in article type, six in author names (five misspellings, one missing two authors), and one in country of affiliation. WoS had one error (a missing author), and PubMed had none.Conclusion: The relatively high error rate in RWD suggests that researchers should cross-check metadata across multiple databases. Given the preliminary nature of this study, larger-scale research is needed to confirm these findings and improve metadata reliability in retraction databases.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143460512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Peer reviewer fatigue, or peer reviewer refusal?

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2463977

Kate Beecher, Joshua Wang

引用次数: 0

Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-16 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2465619

Michael Haman, Milan Školník

引用次数: 0

Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521

Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin

{"title":"Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee.","authors":"Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Deciding which types of activities require an ethics review is a critical component of research regulation. Reviews conducted by research ethics committees consider the rights and safety of potential research participants, and occur as part of a wider set of governance reviews. However, to save time and resources, projects that do not raise ethical issues, or have ethical issues dealt with through other processes, are defined as out of scope for research ethics review by often being labelled as quality improvement, clinical service evaluation, audit or similar.Methodology: Here we argue that the problem of identifying projects that need to be reviewed by a research ethics committee is distinct from attempts to define research more generally, and the two contexts must not be confused.Results: We describe a pragmatic, heuristic, solution developed by the authors working with three UK government agencies, with the goal of clarifying which projects/studies require a research ethics review.Conclusion: Alongside applying to UK research, our approach will be of interest to international regulators and researchers when considering the wider implications as to where ethics accountability sits for different types of research-related activities.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143392252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Open minds, tied hands: Awareness, behavior, and reasoning on open science and irresponsible research behavior.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2457100

Wisnu Wiradhany, Farah M Djalal, Anique B H de Bruin

{"title":"Open minds, tied hands: Awareness, behavior, and reasoning on open science and irresponsible research behavior.","authors":"Wisnu Wiradhany, Farah M Djalal, Anique B H de Bruin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2457100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2457100","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Knowledge on Open Science Practices (OSP) has been promoted through responsible conduct of research training and the development of open science infrastructure to combat Irresponsible Research Behavior (IRB). Yet, there is limited evidence for the efficacy of OSP in minimizing IRB.Methods: We asked N=778 participants to fill in questionnaires that contain OSP and ethical reasoning vignettes, and report self-admission rates of IRB and personality traits.Results: We found that against our initial prediction, even though OSP was negatively correlated with IRB, this correlation was very weak, and upon controlling for individual differences factors, OSP neither predicted IRB nor was this relationship moderated by ethical reasoning. On the other hand, individual differences factors, namely dark personality triad, and conscientiousness and openness, contributed more to IRB than OSP knowledge.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that OSP knowledge needs to be complemented by the development of ethical virtues to encounter IRBs more effectively.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143082015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2460497

Dag Øivind Madsen, Shahab Saquib Sohail

引用次数: 0

Correction. 更正。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-11 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2334736

引用次数: 0

Incorporating implicit bias into research integrity education: Response to 'Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education'. 将隐性偏见纳入研究诚信教育:对“为什么以及如何将种族/民族和性别问题纳入研究诚信教育”的回应。

IF 2.8 1区哲学