Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献_第2页

The impact of "Five No's for Publication" on academic misconduct. “五不准发表”对学术不端行为的影响。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-18 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2279569

Hang Wang, Jian Guan

{"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":"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 (p < 0.001) publications that involve academic misconduct was observed, although there was an increase in the trend of publications of 3.34 per quarter (p < 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.","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}

引用次数: 0

Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review. 研究诚信规范中讨论的教学研究诚信:系统的文献综述。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-23 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2282153

Daniel Crean, Bert Gordijn, Alan J Kearns

{"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":"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.","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}

引用次数: 0

Conceptualizing fairness in the secondary use of health data for research: A scoping review. 二次使用健康数据进行研究的公平性概念化：范围界定综述。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-26 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2271394

Patricia Cervera de la Cruz, Mahsa Shabani

{"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":"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.","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}

引用次数: 0

Correction. 更正。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-22 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2355014

引用次数: 0

Importance of considering historical contexts when selecting terminology for questionable journal list names. 在为有问题的期刊列表名称选择术语时，考虑历史背景的重要性。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-16 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2267969

Kazuki Ide

引用次数: 0

Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys - cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands. 国家调查中研究伦理和诚信领导的表现——爱沙尼亚、芬兰、挪威、法国和荷兰的案例。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-03-30 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2481940

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":"Background: 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.Material: 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.\"Results: 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.Conclusions: 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.","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}

引用次数: 0

Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine. 比较撤稿观察数据库、PubMed和Web of Science在识别医学撤稿出版物方面的表现。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-03-29 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555

Paul Sebo, Melissa Sebo

{"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":"Objective: To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.Methods: 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.Results: A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (n = 382), followed by general internal medicine (n = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (n = 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.Conclusion: RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.","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}

引用次数: 0

Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study. 高知名度医学期刊的形式数据和代码可用性政策与已发表文章中普遍存在的政策实践差距：一项元研究

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943

Wei Li, Xuerong Liu, Qianyu Zhang, Liping Shi, Jing-Xuan Zhang, Xiaolin Zhang, Jia Luan, Yue Li, Ting Xu, Rong Zhang, Xiaodi Han, Jingyu Lei, Xueqian Wang, Yaozhi Wang, Hai Lan, Xiaohan Chen, Yi Wu, Yan Wu, Lei Xia, Haiping Liao, Chang Shen, Yang Yu, Xinyu Xu, Chao Deng, Pei Liu, Zhengzhi Feng, Chun-Ji Huang, Zhiyi Chen

{"title":"Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study.","authors":"Wei Li, Xuerong Liu, Qianyu Zhang, Liping Shi, Jing-Xuan Zhang, Xiaolin Zhang, Jia Luan, Yue Li, Ting Xu, Rong Zhang, Xiaodi Han, Jingyu Lei, Xueqian Wang, Yaozhi Wang, Hai Lan, Xiaohan Chen, Yi Wu, Yan Wu, Lei Xia, Haiping Liao, Chang Shen, Yang Yu, Xinyu Xu, Chao Deng, Pei Liu, Zhengzhi Feng, Chun-Ji Huang, Zhiyi Chen","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles. This study evaluates the stringency of DAC availability policies in high-profile medical journals and identifies policy-practice gaps (PPG) in published articles.Methods: DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet.Results: Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing. Secondary analysis revealed a disproportionate distribution of policies across subspecialties, with 18.6% (11/59) of subspecialties having >20% journals with mandated policies. Journal impact factors exhibited positive correlations with the stringency of availability statement policies (ρ = 0.20, p < 0.001) but not with sharing policies (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.737). Among the 3,191 articles, PPGs were observed in over 90% of cases. Specifically, 33.7% lacked DAC availability statements, 23.3% refused sharing (58.4% of which without justification in public statements), and 13.5% declared public sharing, with 39.0% being unreachable. Finally, only 0.5% achieved full computational reproducibility.Conclusions: Formalistic policies and prevalent PPGs undermine DAC transparency, necessitating a supportive publication ecosystem that empowers authors to uphold scientific responsibility and integrity.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143701439","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

Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? 披露人工智能在科学研究和出版中的使用：何时披露应该是强制性的、可选的或不必要的？

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-03-24 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949

David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini

{"title":"Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?","authors":"David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949","url":null,"abstract":"Currently there is a broad consensus among scholars that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used in research and publication, and that their use should be disclosed. Publishers and influential organizations, like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, have developed different and sometimes contradictory disclosure policies. We review some of these policies, examine the ethical reasons for disclosing AI use in research, and develop a framework for disclosure. We distinguish between mandatory, optional, and unnecessary disclosure of AI use, arguing that disclosure should be mandatory only when AI use is intentional and substantial. AI use is intentional when it is directly employed with a specific goal or purpose in mind. AI use is substantial when it 1) produces evidence, analysis, or discussion that supports or elaborates on the conclusions/findings of a study; or 2) directly affects the content of the research/publication. To support the application of our framework, we state three criteria for identifying substantial AI uses in research: a) using AI to make decisions that directly affect research results; b) using AI to generate content, data or images; and c) using AI to analyze content, data or images. Disclosure should be mandatory when AI use meets one of these criteria.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143694147","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

Mitigating global climate change and its environmental impact is a key social responsibility of scientists and should be part of research ethics policies and guidelines. 减缓全球气候变化及其对环境的影响是科学家的一项关键社会责任，应该成为研究伦理政策和指导方针的一部分。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2479494

Bor Luen Tang

{"title":"Mitigating global climate change and its environmental impact is a key social responsibility of scientists and should be part of research ethics policies and guidelines.","authors":"Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2479494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2479494","url":null,"abstract":"Scientists have both epistemic and social responsibilities. Doing good science and reproducible research work would be a scientist's epistemic responsibility, but what might constitute social responsibility is perhaps broader and more subjective. Here, I posit that mitigation of global climate change (CC) and its environmental impact would be a key contemporary social responsibility of scientists. In their research, diligence in reducing the contribution of their work to greenhouse gas emissions and CC would be morally normative. Furthermore, contributing to tackling CC and its detrimental effects would be befitting of scientists' technical expertise, and is thus an appropriate reciprocative return for the training and resources afforded to them by society (and the environment). Scientists being responsible for tackling CC and its effects can be adequately described by the terms of dimensions of responsibility alluded to by de Melo-Martin and Intemann. As such, there would be no convincing reasons to reject these as important notions that should be incorporated into research ethics guidelines and policies.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143651872","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