Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

{"title":"A measure to quantify predatory publishing is urgently needed.","authors":"Yuki Yamada, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2186225","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2186225","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The issue of predatory publishing is of increasing concern to the academic community. In this letter, we express more concern than hope about a recently launched online machine-learning tool that identifies suspected predatory journals based on existing black/white lists and textual information from journal websites. First, the tool relies on outdated and criticized blacklists, cannot capture cloned or hijacked journals, and may misclassify legitimate journals as \"suspected predatory\". Second, a gray zone in predatory publishing exists where some unscholarly characteristics might exist, although the journal overall might not be considered \"predatory\". We tested this tool and found that it classified three well-established journals in the field of academic publishing as \"suspected predatory\". This may lead to undeserving negative publicity without concrete evidence of \"predatory\" behavior or characteristics. We argue that this tool is very premature and may lead to unfair journal classification. Considerable accountability is needed to fortify its development. We advocate for an inclusive system that involves international stakeholders, and that benefits the academic community as a \"warning\" system.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"79-81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10831270","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}

{"title":"An active aigiarism declaration for manuscript submission.","authors":"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2185776","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2185776","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"77-78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9407493","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}

{"title":"Research anomalies in criminology: How serious? How extensive over time? And who was responsible?","authors":"Walter R Schumm, Duane W Crawford, Lorenza Lockett, Abdullah AlRashed, Asma Bin Ateeq","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2241127","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2241127","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A variety of ways to detect questionable research practices in small sample social science surveys have been discussed by a variety of authors. However, some of those approaches (e.g., GRIM test, SPRITE test) do not work well for results obtained from larger samples. Here several approaches for detecting anomalies in larger samples are presented and illustrated by an analysis of 78 journal articles in the area of criminology, 59 by Dr. Eric Stewart, published since 1998 with similar methods and/or authors. Of all 59 articles, 28 (47.5%, <i>p</i> < .001, d = 0.94) had two or more major anomalies compared to none of the 19 control group articles. It was also found that the larger the role of Dr. Stewart in article authorship, the greater the number of anomalies detected (<i>p</i> < .001, d = 1.01) while for his coauthors, there were few significant relationships between their roles and total anomalies. Our results demonstrate that extensive problematic results can remain undetected for decades despite several levels of peer review and other scientific controls; however, use of two types of control groups and the use of statistical methods for measuring and evaluating anomalies can improve detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"22-58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9890416","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}

{"title":"A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute.","authors":"Virginia Sanchini, Luca Marelli, Massimo Monturano, Giuseppina Bonizzi, Giulia Peruzzotti, Roberto Orecchia, Gabriella Pravettoni","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2248884","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2248884","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"59-76"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10143847","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}

{"title":"Whistleblowing legislation and reporting on research misconduct: A case for mutual learning.","authors":"Olivier Leclerc","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2240705","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2240705","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Regulations on reporting research misconduct have undergone a remarkable process of development since the 1980s. At the same time, many states have also developed legislation governing the receiving of alerts and for protecting whistleblowers against reprisal. Although these two bodies of legislation share the aim of organizing the practice of reporting, they have been developed in isolation from each other, and without sufficient thought as to how they should be linked. Based on an analysis of European Union law and its transposition in France, this article identifies the convergences and divergences between whistleblowing legislation and the reporting of research misconduct. It then looks at the contributions that each body of law can make to the other, both in terms of the procedures applicable and the protection afforded to whistleblowers. The lessons learned from the comparison of whistleblowing law and the procedures for reporting scientific misconduct allow for the identification of avenues for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9893599","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}

{"title":"Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?","authors":"Bjørn Hofmann","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Polarized research has become a problem for the trustworthiness and applicability of scientific results. Accordingly, this paper addresses three key questions: 1) What is polarization in scientific research? 2) Why is such polarization problematic? 3) How can the problem be addressed?<b>Methods:</b> The first question is addressed by describing how the polarization has been characterized in the literature and by analysing an example before assessing existing definitions and elaborating a definition of polarization. The second question is answered by describing challenges with polarization found in the literature. The third question is addressed by investigating different explanations for and relevant mechanisms behind polarization in research, such as psychological, structural, epistemic and ontological, evaluative, and social-constructionist explanations. Moreover, several approaches from the philosophy of science are investigated.<b>Results:</b> Polarization in research is characterized by opposing and incommensurable positions that tend to stem from differences in basic values, and that are used to define, differentiate, bolster, and demarcate between groups and for reinforcing their identity. The problem with polarization is that it violates a broad range of basic norms in science, and hampers scientific progress, represents large opportunity costs, undermines trust in science and, subsequently that it undercuts the application of scientific results as well as future funding. There are many potential measures to reduce polarization. However, there are no simple solutions, as polarization is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in basic human characteristics.<b>Conclusion:</b> Polarization is a ubiquitous phenomenon and a basic challenge for scientific research. It is crucial to increase the awareness of polarization, and a clear definition is key to study and address the problem. However, while there are many ways to actively address the problem of polarization in scientific research, there are no easy solutions. More research is needed to move from what we can do to what we should do.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142830786","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}

{"title":"The association of gender, experience, and academic rank in peer-reviewed manuscript evaluation.","authors":"J A Garcia, J J Montero-Parodi, Rosa Rodriguez-Sanchez, J Fdez-Valdivia","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2440098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2440098","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: We consider a research model for manuscript evaluation using a two-stage process. In the first stage, the current submission reminds reviewers of previous reviewing experiences, and then, reviewers aggregate these past review experiences into a kind of norm for assessing the scientific contribution and clarity of writing required for a manuscript. In the second stage, the reviewer's norms are imposed on the manuscript under review, and the reviewer's attention is drawn to discrepancies between the norm retrieved from previous similar peer review experiences and the reality for this submission.<b>Methods</b>: Five research hypotheses were integrated into this research model. In our study, we tested these five research hypotheses for statistical differences among reviewers by gender, experience, and academic rank using an online survey. There were 573 respondents.<b>Results</b>: We did not find significant differences among reviewers in their basic behavioral patterns. The only exception was that the low-rank reviewers agreed with the first hypothesis \"H1: Selective norm\" to a greater extent than the high-rank reviewers.<b>Conclusions</b>: The interaction between a reviewer's past review experiences and the actual scientific contribution and writing clarity of the manuscript under review can explain the lack of consistency among different reviews for the same manuscript.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142820105","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}

{"title":"Virtue ethics-based research integrity training intervention to change medical students' attitudes and perceptions of organizational ethical climate: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Marin Viđak, Ružica Tokalić, Ivan Buljan, Ana Marušić","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2438102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2438102","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Universities are increasingly offering training in research integrity (RI) to enhance research quality and foster RI. Despite the importance of integrating scientific virtues into such training, there is a lack of assessment of virtue ethics-based RI training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomised controlled study assessing the impact of a virtue-based training for RI, performed at the University of Split School of Medicine in 2020-2021. We included first-year medical students who were randomly assigned to a control group, receiving a RI lecture, or the interventional group, receiving the same lecture plus a virtue-based training for RI. We measured changes in Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ) scores as the primary outcome and the difference between perceived and desired ECQ scores as the secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 181 participants, 105 (55 control, 50 experimental) completed the study. The virtue-based training did not significantly change ethical climate perceptions between groups. Dominant climates were Company rules and procedures and Laws and professional codes. Overall, the preferred climates emphasized Team interest and Social responsibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates the value of using ECQ to assess RI training and highlights the need for further research into the long-term effects of virtue-based training.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142820106","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}

{"title":"On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship.","authors":"Wei Zhu, Xuedong Tian","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2439443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2439443","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142803268","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}

{"title":"On the (ab)use of special issues in scholarly journals.","authors":"Salim Moussa","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2439434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2439434","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142807161","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}