Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

{"title":"International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on patient, carer and public involvement to enhance clinical trial integrity.","authors":"Khalid Saeed Khan, Mohamed Fawzy, Balázs Juhász, Patrick Chien, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Javier Zamora, Alberto Ruano Raviña, María Núñez-Núñez, Maria Del Carmen Amezcua Prieto, Sergio Martínez Vázquez, León González Casas, Allan Pacey, Begoña Martinez de Tejada, Klejda Harasani, Yacoub Khalaf, Gamal Serour, Mohamed Aboulghar, Hassan Sallam, Vicente Martín Sánchez, Olga Ocón Hernández, Giovanni Grandi, Bassel Wattar, William Parry-Smith, Elizabeth Ball, Janneke van 't Hooft, Ali Mahran, Luciano Mignini, Mohamed Bedaiwy, Mohamed Yehia Soliman, Amr El-Shalakany, Miland Joshi, Ngawai Moss, Jeffrey A Andrews, Jun Jim Zhang, Michael Geary, Anthony Odibo, Tayyiba Wasim, Naomi Cano Ibáñez, Mohamad A Elsuity, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2647346","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2647346","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The recent update of the Declaration of Helsinki has emphasized community engagement and research integrity. Patient, carer and public involvement (PCPI) throughout the research lifecycle of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can enhance their integrity. However, no specific PCPI guidance exists for trialists. The Cairo Consensus Group on Research Integrity, consisting of 40 stakeholders from 14 countries, developed a statement to address this gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/fqepb). Based on the findings of a literature review and a stakeholder consultation, an initial long list of recommendations was created. It was submitted to a two-round modified Delphi survey before being finalized in a hybrid online-face-to-face meeting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The modified Delphi survey response rate was 63% (29/46) for the first round, and 65% (30/46) for the second round. The initial long list consisted of 46 statements, and nine additional statements were provided during the consensus process. The final set consolidated 39 statements, grouped into seven categories: General; Design, Approval and Funding; Conduct and Monitoring; Reporting of protocols and findings; Dissemination and Implementation; and Future Research and Development.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This international consensus statement is expected to help organizations implement PCPI to enhance RCT integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2647346"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147516404","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":"Identificatory underpinnings of ethical research behavior for graduate students: Evidence from a baseline sample of a university research ethics training program.","authors":"Mitch Brown, Donald F Sacco, Clyde Raible, Karl J Wallace, Jennifer L Lemacks","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2659673","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2659673","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In efforts to improve replication rates across sciences, graduate student training can foster an understanding of best practices. One consideration is to identify the psychological underpinnings that motivate early-career researchers to avoid questionable research practices (QRPs) and engage in transparent research behaviors. Recent findings demonstrate efficacy by leveraging identificatory processes, or how researchers identify with ethical science. This study examined whether the extent to which individuals incorporate ethical scientific principles into their identities can motivate disinterest in QRPs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>As part of a baseline data collection effort for a systemic ethics training program at a Carnegie R1 institute, graduate students provided initial measures assessing endorsement of scientific values as outlined by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and the extent to which those values are part of their identity. They also reported their perceptions of the defensibility of various QRPs, and their willingness to engage in them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Greater endorsement of NASEM values was associated with less endorsement of QRPs. This association was mediated by inclusion of these values in one's own identity. Results provide initial evidence for how institutes can foster psychological profiles of an ethical researcher in developing training modules for graduate students.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2659673"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147700292","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":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2710539","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2710539","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2710539"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148632536","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":"Closing the paper mines.","authors":"Adrian Barnett, Jennifer Byrne","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2626740","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2626740","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientific fakery is a centuries old problem. Twinned with the long history of hard-working scientists earning fame for genuine discoveries, runs a tawdry history of those who were willing fabricate results to falsely gain prestige. Fraud in the past relied on bespoke fakery, but today's fraudsters can exploit the online scientific world to quickly create realistic looking papers on an industrial scale. Fraudsters are using open data sets to create meaningless analyses and combining these results with text from large language models. There has been an explosion of these low value papers using openly available and highly regarded data sets, such as the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The paper miners will likely exploit whatever open data resources they can find until data custodians put more stringent controls in place, or journals and publishers push back. Some scientific data may be too open, even though making research data openly available is a recommended policy for increasing research integrity. Journals and researchers need to be aware of this new threat to research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2626740"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146120645","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":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors: A content analysis of journal policies.","authors":"Deborah H Charbonneau, Mei Zhang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632083","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632083","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to examine how scholarly journals advise authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors about the acceptable use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scholarly publishing process.<b>Methods:</b> Using a content analysis method, policies from 80 journals were collected in August 2024 from publicly available websites. Data from the journal policies related to AI authorship and allowable AI use by authors, peer reviewers, and editors were entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed using descriptive statistics.<b>Findings:</b> The results show that 62.5% (<i>n</i> = 50) of the journal policies mentioned AI. 96% of these journals did not permit AI to be listed as an author. 54% of journals allowed authors to use AI tools to improve language in their manuscript, whereas using AI to generate images was prohibited by 26% of journals. 64% of journals did not provide any AI-related guidance for peer reviewers/editors.<b>Conclusion:</b> This research advances the literature by detailing journal policies regarding AI authorship, the allowed use of AI for authors and peer reviewers, and disciplinary distinctions in AI treatment. The findings underscore the need for enhanced guidance directed at authors, peer reviewers, and editors regarding the ethical and appropriate application of AI tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2632083"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146221013","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":"Emerging ethical duties in AI-mediated research: A case of data sovereignty in applying cross-national regulation.","authors":"Ricardo Ayala, Pedro Hervé-Fernández","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2623487","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2623487","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping research practices, yet its ethical implications remain under‑examined, particularly in cross‑national contexts.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore how AI integration into environmental science complicates informed consent, privacy and data sovereignty, and to identify the ethical duties that follow for researchers.</p><p><strong>Case context: </strong>Drawing on a Chilean case study that adopts the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a normative framework, we focus on everyday AI‑mediated tools embedded in research infrastructures (e.g., transcription, cloud services, meeting assistants) and the tensions they introduce.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>AI intensifies -rather than replaces- ethical accountability, especially where legal protections are weak or infrastructures unequal. Algorithmic opacity constrains researcher autonomy and undermines data sovereignty.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A governance approach grounded in data sovereignty and researcher autonomy is required to safeguard consent, privacy, and accountability in AI‑mediated research.</p><p><strong>Implications for policy and practice: </strong>We propose a revised model of ethical governance to support researchers working across fragmented regulations and opaque AI systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2623487"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146094834","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 Delphi survey on attitudes to serious research misconduct: Exploring convergence vs. polarization of views of research \"sleuths\" and research integrity experts.","authors":"Dorothy V M Bishop","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632079","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632079","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research fraud is often seen as a rare event, but evidence from self-report surveys indicates that fabrication and falsification of data are common enough to be a problem. This study assessed attitudes to serious research misconduct, contrasting views of self-appointed research \"sleuths\" and research integrity (RI) experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Respondents completed a two-round Delphi survey, rating agreement with statements about prevalence, responses to, and consequences of serious research misconduct. In Round 1, there were 95 respondents (37 sleuths, 33 RI experts and 25 other). For Round 2, there were 79 respondents (36 sleuths, 22 RI experts and 21 other).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents agreed on the damaging impact of academic incentive structures on research integrity, and the importance of agencies working together to address serious research misconduct and preserve the academic record. There was polarization of views between sleuths and RI experts on the frequency of serious research misconduct, the adequacy of institutional responses, and the suitability of self-regulation by institutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sleuths and RI experts operate in information silos. They could benefit from working together, but this will only be possible if trust is restored. Institutional self-regulation has drawbacks. Strengths and weaknesses of alternative regulatory models need to be evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2632079"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147285979","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":"Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity.","authors":"M Ángeles Oviedo-García, René Aquarius, Dorothy V M Bishop","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2640012","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2640012","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Review mills are recognized when individuals generate numerous generic review reports, typically containing suggestions for citations to their own work. Here, we report a network with characteristics of a review mill in the field of gynecological oncology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our search started with a review that contained \"boilerplate\" comments as well as suggestions that specific PubMed IDs be cited. We searched the internet using Google for review reports using the same boilerplate comments. We coded text to quantify similarities between reviews and compiled citations suggested by reviewers. For comparison, we analyzed 59 reviews of the same articles by other peer reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified a network of 195 review reports that shared boilerplate text from 170 articles. One hundred and eighty-six reports suggested citing articles coauthored by a member of the network. Five members of the network had editorial roles. Authors of 142 articles complied with suggestions for citation. Boilerplate text and citation recommendations were rare in the comparison reports.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Review mills lead to articles being published without proper peer review. This is of particular concern in medical research. Open peer review and transparent reporting of the editors responsible for handling papers will make it easier to detect review mills.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2640012"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147357672","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":"New evidence of weakness and inconsistency in the regulation of research misconduct in Australia.","authors":"Jason M Chin, Rebekah McWhirter","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2667227","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2667227","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Public trust in research depends in part on the capacity of the system to detect and correct errors in the research record. In Australia, this task is largely entrusted to research institutions through a self-regulatory framework. The present article seeks to contribute to ongoing conversations about whether the Australian framework is fit for purpose.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Here, we assemble and analyze two sources of information that appear not to have been previously analyzed: research misconduct investigation policies at Australian Group of Eight universities (a group of Australian universities that purport to be its leading research-intensive universities) and published decisions and appeals arising from workplace disputes involving allegations of research misconduct.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Together, these materials support existing concerns that universities are not adopting robust policies regarding reporting findings of misconduct and correcting the record, and that they sometimes fail to follow their own policies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Claims that the current self-regulatory approach is sufficient are not supported by our evidence. These findings provide a foundation for reform, including revisions to the existing guidelines and the creation of an independent oversight body with adequate enforcement powers.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2667227"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147823190","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":"Researching retraction: Do we need more rules or more honesty?","authors":"David Mills, Sefika Mertkan","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2683838","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2683838","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Should the methodological tools and review protocols required of biomedical researchers become the default for social science meta-researchers? And should these reporoducibility standards then be used to gatekeep and police \"methodological expertise?\" This seems to be the judgmental sub-text of the Bakker et al commentary on our paper. In this response, we make the case for critical accountability research to cultivate forms of methodological rigor that are aligned with the research questions and design. Our paper, based on a systematic topographical review of research into retraction, sought to show the limits of the existing research base. Our survey highlighted how most existing work was quantitative, rarely interview-based, and often failed to explore why journals and publishers were so slow to retract. There is too little attention to the politics, economics, and sociology of research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2683838"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148240273","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}