{"title":"Safeguarding scientific integrity: A case study in examining manipulation in the peer review process.","authors":"Leslie D McIntosh, Cynthia Hudson Vitale","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2292043","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2292043","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This case study analyzes the expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and objectivity of editors, authors, and peer reviewers involved in a 2022 special journal issue on fertility, pregnancy, and mental health. Data were collected on qualifications, organizational affiliations, and relationships among six papers' authors, three guest editors, and twelve peer reviewers. Two articles were found to have undisclosed conflicts of interest between authors, an editor, and multiple peer reviewers affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy and lobbying groups, indicating compromised objectivity. This lack of transparency undermines the peer review process and enables biased research and disinformation proliferation.Our study is limited by a few factors including: difficulty collecting peer reviewer data, potentially missing affiliations, and a small sample without comparisons. While this is a case study of one special issue, we do have suggestions for increasing integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"195-213"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138813093","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}
Brandon Long, Savannah Laux, Benjamin Lemon, Alexa Guarente, Mark Davis, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric Fang, Min Shi, David B Resnik
{"title":"Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.","authors":"Brandon Long, Savannah Laux, Benjamin Lemon, Alexa Guarente, Mark Davis, Arturo Casadevall, Ferric Fang, Min Shi, David B Resnik","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2287046","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2287046","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We extracted, coded, and analyzed data from 343 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries published in the <i>Federal Register</i> and other venues from May 1993 to July 2023 to test hypotheses concerning the relationship between the severity of ORI administrative actions and various demographic and institutional factors. We found that factors indicative of the severity of the respondent's misconduct or a pattern of misbehavior were associated with the severity of ORI administrative actions. Being required by ORI to retract or correct publications and aggravating factors, such as interfering with an investigation, were both positively associated with receiving a funding debarment and with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Admitting one's guilt and being found to have committed plagiarism (only) were negatively associated with receiving a funding debarment but were neither positively nor negatively associated with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Other factors, such as the respondent's race/ethnicity, gender, academic position, administrative position, or their institution's NIH funding level or extramural vs. intramural or foreign vs. US status, were neither positively nor negatively associated with the severity of administrative actions. Overall, our findings suggest that ORI has acted fairly when imposing administrative actions on respondents and has followed DHHS guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"417-438"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11128533/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138446929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Do authors need an Ombudsperson to resolve peer-review issues?","authors":"Clovis Mariano Faggion","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2265302","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2265302","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"441-442"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41171687","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 impact of \"Five No's for Publication\" on academic misconduct.","authors":"Hang Wang, Jian Guan","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2279569","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2279569","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>China initiated the \"Five No's for Publication\" in December 2015 as a response to rising incidents of retraction. Use the number of retracted publications and their original publication time as proxies to investigate the effect of the Five No's policy on academic misconduct. We searched the Retraction Watch Database for research articles published by Chinese scholars from 1 March 2010 to 29 February 2020. The short- and long-term trends of the number of publications were presented by conducting an interrupted time series analysis in quarterly time units. Of 4,215 retracted papers with Chinese authors, 2,881 involving academic misconduct were identified. In the first quarter (12.01.2015-02.29.2016) after the implementation of the Five No's, an average reduction of 55.80 (<i>p</i> < 0.001) publications that involve academic misconduct was observed, although there was an increase in the trend of publications of 3.34 per quarter (<i>p</i> < 0.01) in the long run (12.01.2015-02.29.2020), relative to the pre-intervention period (03.01.2010-11.30.2015). The validity of these results was further supported by three different robustness checks. China's government should strengthen enforcement, promote education, and improve the scientific evaluation system to consolidate the influence of the Five No's policy and foster an ethical research environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"299-317"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71523308","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":"Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review.","authors":"Daniel Crean, Bert Gordijn, Alan J Kearns","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2282153","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2282153","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Presented here is a systematic literature review of how RI teaching is discussed in national and international research integrity (RI) codes. First, we set out to identify the codes that exist, and performed some generic analysis on them. Following a comprehensive search strategy, which included all 193 United Nations member states, we identified 52 national and 14 international RI codes. RI teaching is addressed in 46 national and 10 international codes. We then examined how the codes address RI teaching under the following headings: the aims, the target audience, the ethics approach proposed, the assessment and/or evaluation strategy, and any challenges identified in relation to RI teaching. There is considerable overlap between the aims of RI teaching in the various codes, for example, promoting awareness of RI. Most codes claim RI teaching is for all researchers, but without any in-depth guidance. While educational programmes, training, and mentorship/supervision are proposed for RI teaching, there is insufficient detail to identify the ethics approach to be used in such teaching. Lastly, only few address assessment and/or evaluation or challenges in RI teaching. Here, we analyzed how current codes address RI teaching; we identified some shortfalls, and in our discussion we advance recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"369-392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"92157227","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":"Conceptualizing fairness in the secondary use of health data for research: A scoping review.","authors":"Patricia Cervera de la Cruz, Mahsa Shabani","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2271394","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2271394","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the introduction of the European Health Data Space (EHDS), the secondary use of health data for research purposes is attracting more attention. Secondary health data processing promises to address novel research questions, inform the design of future research and improve healthcare delivery generally. To comply with the existing data protection regulations, the secondary data use must be fair, among other things. However, there is no clear understanding of what fairness means in the context of secondary use of health data for scientific research purposes. In response, we conducted a scoping review of argument-based literature to explore how fairness in the secondary use of health data has been conceptualized. A total of 35 publications were included in the final synthesis after abstract and full-text screening. Using an inductive approach and a thematic analysis, our review has revealed that balancing individual and public interests, reducing power asymmetries, setting conditions for commercial involvement, and implementing benefit sharing are essential to guarantee fair secondary use research. The findings of this review can inform current and future research practices and policy development to adequately address concerns about fairness in the secondary use of health data.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"233-262"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41240614","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":"Correction.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2355014","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2355014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"i"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141081652","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":"Importance of considering historical contexts when selecting terminology for questionable journal list names.","authors":"Kazuki Ide","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2267969","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2267969","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Questionable journal lists are often referred to as \"blacklists\" and conventionally used alongside \"whitelists.\" Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that these terms carry historical connotations that can be perceived as racist, and their use should be actively avoided. This article proposes alternative terms, such as \"watchlist\" and \"safelist,\" taking into consideration their etymology. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that the quality of a journal cannot be adequately characterized in a dualistic manner, and this aspect is also of significant importance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"439-440"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41154894","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}
Anu Tammeleht, J Antoniou, R de La C Bernabe, C Chapin, S van den Hooff, V N Mbanya, M L Parder, A Sairio, K Videnoja, E Löfström
{"title":"Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys - cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands.","authors":"Anu Tammeleht, J Antoniou, R de La C Bernabe, C Chapin, S van den Hooff, V N Mbanya, M L Parder, A Sairio, K Videnoja, E Löfström","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481940","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481940","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A systems approach encourages the consideration of the national dimension of research integrity. National surveys provide a picture of a wider research community overarching research institutions.</p><p><strong>Material: </strong>We investigated how research ethics and integrity leadership (REI) is manifested in national surveys by conducting a cross-case meta-synthesis of national surveys of Finland, Estonia, Norway, France and the Netherlands using deductive thematic analysis. The REI leadership competence framework involves four central principles: \"people's needs,\" \"developing the community,\" \"leaders\" personal competencies,' and \"open culture.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The principle \"researchers\" needs' seemed to be related to the support in the working environment, socializing for values and principles, leaders taking responsibility and the need for understanding for career planning, common practices and managing pressure. \"Community development\" was characterized through REI infrastructure, like guidelines and training, even though participation in training varied substantially across the countries. The principle \"leaders\" competencies' indicated that leaders should be role-models especially in acting appropriately when allegations of misconduct arise. \"Open culture\" was displayed through trust and courage to talk about ethics including whistleblowing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results indicated that observed misconduct was often not reported because of fear of retaliation, missing instructions or seeing no point in reporting. We provide recommendations for the development of REI leadership.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143755743","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":"Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine.","authors":"Paul Sebo, Melissa Sebo","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (<i>n</i> = 382), followed by general internal medicine (<i>n</i> = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (<i>n</i> = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143744366","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}