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

Family without kinship - the pluralism of European regulatory research integrity systems and its implications. 没有亲属关系的家庭--欧洲研究诚信监管体系的多元化及其影响。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-24 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2345710

K Videnoja, L Tauginienė, E Löfström

{"title":"Family without kinship - the pluralism of European regulatory research integrity systems and its implications.","authors":"K Videnoja, L Tauginienė, E Löfström","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345710","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345710","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the differences and similarities between European regulatory research integrity systems. The data collection process involved gathering information from public sources. A total of 27 European countries were included in the comprehensive dataset. Three determinants were examined: the legal structure of national research integrity regulation, the presence of national research integrity guidelines, and the provision of research integrity training by national research integrity offices. Qualitative content analysis was employed to identify relevant differences in national research integrity systems and the work of national research integrity offices. The findings suggest that the functions and powers of research integrity offices in Europe vary significantly, and there is extensive variation in the legal status and functions of national research integrity systems. We identify the major implications arising from these differences and explore what the challenges for harmonization of the European research integrity systems are. Our findings highlight the need for promoting dialogue between actors on an international level.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1126-1147"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140855744","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 punishment intensity for research misconduct and its related factors: An exploratory study on hospitals in Mainland China. 科研不端行为的惩罚力度及其相关因素：对中国大陆医院的探索性研究。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-14 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2377723

Gengyan Tang

{"title":"The punishment intensity for research misconduct and its related factors: An exploratory study on hospitals in Mainland China.","authors":"Gengyan Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2377723","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2377723","url":null,"abstract":"Previous studies have found that factors such as gender and academic positions do not influence the severity of administrative actions taken by institutions. However, this study provides partly inconsistent evidence. It focuses on incidents of research misconduct in hospitals across Mainland China and explores factors related to punishment using a large cross-sectional dataset (N = 815). Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between authorship order and the punishment intensity (p < 0.05). Under specific conditions, there was a significant correlation between the professional title (senior) and punishment intensity (p = 0.001), and an interaction between professional title and types of research misbehavior. Further analysis of simple effects showed that, in cases of fabrication and falsification, and combinations of multiple research misbehavior, researchers with senior titles received significantly lighter punishments compared to those with junior, intermediate, and associate senior titles (p < 0.05). The study unveils the potential accountability patterns (collective accountability and tiered punishment) that may be adopted by hospitals in Mainland China, as well as the challenges faced in ensuring fairness, emphasizing the importance of independent investigative bodies for incidents of research misconduct, and advocating for fairness as a priority in governance of research misconduct.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1219-1240"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141617516","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

Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications. 解读 COVID-19 研究中的撤稿动态：模式、原因和影响

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-23 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2379906

Parul Khurana, Kiran Sharma, Ziya Uddin

{"title":"Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications.","authors":"Parul Khurana, Kiran Sharma, Ziya Uddin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2379906","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2379906","url":null,"abstract":"Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1241-1264"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141749600","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

Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science? 出版缺乏有效性或可重复性的重要著作--是开拓前沿还是腐蚀科学？

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-02 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2345714

Bor Luen Tang

{"title":"Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science?","authors":"Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345714","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345714","url":null,"abstract":"Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1159-1179"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140870956","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

Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed. 关于诚实的研究中的捏造：科伦坡》（Columbo）中的一集遗失剧，说明法医统计是如何进行的。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-17 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2329265

Greg Samsa

引用次数: 0

Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation. 用于评估人文科学研究的伦理委员会框架和程序需要改革：英国范围内的网络咨询结果。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-28 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736

Jonathan R Kasstan, Geoff Pearson

{"title":"Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation.","authors":"Jonathan R Kasstan, Geoff Pearson","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Qualitative Humanities research is perturbed by ethical review processes that routinely invoke epistemological assumptions skewed towards positivistic or deductive research, giving rise to several concerns, including increased risk aversion by University Research Ethics Committees (URECs) and the evaluation of qualitative research designs according to STEM standards.Methods/materials: This paper presents findings from an AHRC-funded research network built to better understand how research ethics frameworks and processes might be reformed to more appropriately fit ethically challenging qualitative methodologies.Results: There remains dissatisfaction with the current processes for awarding ethical approval and the subsequent management of ethical dimensions of projects. In spite of recent developments, UREC frameworks remain seriously flawed, with a wide divergence in the quality of expertise, procedures, and practices, leading to inconsistency in ethical approval awards.Conclusions: These factors downgrade UK Higher Education research power in the Humanities and undermine our commitments to the researched. We propose a series of recommendations for reform.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1265-1284"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141789784","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

Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities. 荷兰的复制研究：为资助者、出版商和编辑以及大学提供的经验教训和建议。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-13 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349

Maarten Derksen, Stephanie Meirmans, Jonna Brenninkmeijer, Jeannette Pols, Annemarijn de Boer, Hans van Eyghen, Surya Gayet, Rolf Groenwold, Dennis Hernaus, Pim Huijnen, Nienke Jonker, Renske de Kleijn, Charlotte F Kroll, Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos, Nynke van der Laan, Kim Luijken, Ewout Meijer, Rachel S A Pear, Rik Peels, Robin Peeters, Charlotte C S Rulkens, Christin Scholz, Nienke Smit, Rombert Stapel, Joost de Winter

{"title":"Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities.","authors":"Maarten Derksen, Stephanie Meirmans, Jonna Brenninkmeijer, Jeannette Pols, Annemarijn de Boer, Hans van Eyghen, Surya Gayet, Rolf Groenwold, Dennis Hernaus, Pim Huijnen, Nienke Jonker, Renske de Kleijn, Charlotte F Kroll, Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos, Nynke van der Laan, Kim Luijken, Ewout Meijer, Rachel S A Pear, Rik Peels, Robin Peeters, Charlotte C S Rulkens, Christin Scholz, Nienke Smit, Rombert Stapel, Joost de Winter","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2383349","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1285-1303"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972304","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

ChatGPT as an "author": Bibliometric analysis to assess the validity of authorship. 作为 "作者 "的 ChatGPT：通过文献计量分析评估作者身份的有效性。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-01 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2345713

Serhii Nazarovets, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva

{"title":"ChatGPT as an \"author\": Bibliometric analysis to assess the validity of authorship.","authors":"Serhii Nazarovets, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345713","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345713","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Following the 2023 surge in popularity of large language models like ChatGPT, significant ethical discussions emerged regarding their role in academic authorship. Notable ethics organizations, including the ICMJE and COPE, alongside leading publishers, have instituted ethics clauses explicitly stating that such models do not meet the criteria for authorship due to accountability issues.Objective: This study aims to assess the prevalence and ethical implications of listing ChatGPT as an author on academic papers, in violation of existing ethical guidelines set by the ICMJE and COPE.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus to identify instances where ChatGPT was credited as an author, co-author, or group author.Results: Our search identified 14 papers featuring ChatGPT in such roles. In four of those papers, ChatGPT was listed as an \"author\" alongside the journal's editor or editor-in-chief. Several of the ChatGPT-authored papers have accrued dozens, even hundreds of citations according to Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.Discussion: The inclusion of ChatGPT as an author on these papers raises critical questions about the definition of authorship and the accountability mechanisms in place for content produced by artificial intelligence. Despite the ethical guidelines, the widespread citation of these papers suggests a disconnect between ethical policy and academic practice.Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for corrective measures to address these discrepancies. Immediate review and amendment of the listed papers is advised, highlighting a significant oversight in the enforcement of ethical standards in academic publishing.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1148-1158"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140872419","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

Maintaining ethics, Integrity, and accountability: Best practices for reporting a meta-analysis. 维护道德、诚信和责任：报告荟萃分析的最佳做法。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-11 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2334722

Aditya K Panda

引用次数: 0

A classroom exercise for improving mentor/mentee relationships. 改善导师/学员关系的课堂练习。

IF 4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-09-25 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2560886

Robert Klitzman

{"title":"A classroom exercise for improving mentor/mentee relationships.","authors":"Robert Klitzman","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2560886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2560886","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) courses seek to heighten awareness of the importance of mentor/mentee interactions and other topics, but questions remain - e.g., how best to train mentors/mentees to establish such relationships.Description of exercise: This paper proposes an approach as a model to strengthen RCR education by more fully, and actively, rather than passively, engaging trainees. A classroom activity was developed that can enhance instructors' abilities to improve mentor/mentee interactions. The instructor divided classes into groups of roughly four trainees, and had them think of a good mentor they have observed, and to list traits/behaviors they liked. Groups then summarized discussions for the class. The instructors recorded and integrated responses. Each group then considered bad mentors, answering the same questions, and repeating the process regarding bad mentees and good mentees. The class then compared the four discussions. Trainees have commonly had both formal and informal mentors, seen both good and bad mentors and mentees, and often themselves served as mentors. Mentees thus connect abstract principles concerning mentorship to personal experiences; and reflect on their own interactions/roles, preferences, and rights/responsibilities.Conclusion: This exercise suggests some benefits of recognizing personal/emotional, not just intellectual components in RCR, and has important implications for education, practice, and research.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145139241","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