Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献_第4页

Are there accurate and legitimate ways to machine-quantify predatoriness, or an urgent need for an automated online tool? 是否有准确和合法的方法来机器量化掠夺性，或者迫切需要一个自动化的在线工具?

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2253425

Bor Luen Tang

引用次数: 0

The core epistemic responsibilities of universities: Results from a Delphi study. 大学核心认知责任:德尔菲研究的结果。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2255826

I M Lechner, L B Mokkink, G J de Ridder, R van Woudenberg, L M Bouter, J K Tijdink

{"title":"The core epistemic responsibilities of universities: Results from a Delphi study.","authors":"I M Lechner, L B Mokkink, G J de Ridder, R van Woudenberg, L M Bouter, J K Tijdink","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2255826","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2255826","url":null,"abstract":"Epistemic responsibilities (ERs) of universities concern equipping and empowering its researchers, educators and students to attain, produce, exchange and disseminate knowledge. ERs can potentially guide universities in improving education, research and in service to society. Building on earlier philosophical work, we applied empirical methods to identify core ERs of universities and their constituting elements. We used a three-round Delphi survey, alternating between closed questions to gain consensus, and open questions to let panelists motivate their answers. 46 panelists participated in our study. We reached consensus on six ERs: 1) to foster research integrity, 2) to stimulate the development of intellectual virtues, 3) to address the big questions of life, 4) to cultivate the diversity of the disciplinary fields, 5) to serve and engage with society at large, and 6) to cultivate and safeguard academic freedom. Together the six ERs contain 27 elements. Consensus rates ranged from 73%-100% for both the ERs and their elements. Participants' detailed responses led to substantial improvements in the accompanying descriptions of the ERs. Our findings can inform the debate about the roles and responsibilities of universities, and inform researchers and policy makers to emphasize epistemic tasks of universities.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"99-119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10199808","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

Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists. 可疑期刊的列表合理吗：预警期刊列表的案例研究。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2261846

Gengyan Tang, Jingyu Peng

{"title":"Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists.","authors":"Gengyan Tang, Jingyu Peng","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2261846","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2261846","url":null,"abstract":"The use of lists of questionable journals as a means to ensure research quality and integrity is the subject of an ongoing debate due to their ambiguous criteria. To assess the reasonableness of these lists from a typological perspective, we examined how effectively they reflect differences in bibliometric attributes among distinct groups and whether these differences are consistent. Using the Early Warning Journal Lists from the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a case study, we categorized listed journals by warning levels and publication years. Our findings indicate potential inconsistencies in the criteria used for assigning warning levels, as we observed varying degrees of differences (or their absence) among groups across different key academic indicators. Notably, when it comes to citation metrics like journal impact factor and journal citation indicator, it appears that these criteria may not have been considered for grouping, although this lack of clarity from the creators is apparent. This underscores the importance of conducting more scientific and thorough evaluations of lists of questionable journals, along with a greater emphasis on sharing precise standards and data. Our study also provides recommendations for future iterations of such lists by different institutions.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"158-181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41177399","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 author expression of concern (AEOC): A proposed formal mechanism to allow authors' legitimate concerns to be heard, and their rights and voices to be respected. 作者表达关注（AEOC）：一种拟议的正式机制，允许作者的合法关注得到倾听，他们的权利和声音得到尊重。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-19 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2258625

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada

{"title":"The author expression of concern (AEOC): A proposed formal mechanism to allow authors' legitimate concerns to be heard, and their rights and voices to be respected.","authors":"Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Yuki Yamada","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2258625","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2258625","url":null,"abstract":"We propose a type of DOI-based manuscript, the author expression of concern (AEOC), allowing authors to formally publish their concerns about legitimate procedural problems associated with editors, reviewers, journals or publishers. Managed by a neutral third-party arbitrator or moderator, AEOCs would be limited in size and subjected to fair but strict screening of presented evidence. When an AEOC is approved for publication by an arbitrator, the criticized party would also need to formally respond within a reasonable period, as a \"letter to the author(s)\", which is also screened by the same arbitrator. Expanding the range of publishing options for authors, as AEOCs, would allow them to voice their legitimate concerns related to a journal's procedures in a formalized format. Although implementation might be challenging at first, it could demonstrate the fairness of editorial policies and democratize the publication process by taking authors' legitimate expressions of discontent related to procedure, and their rights of expression into account, elevating them to a formal article status, allowing for a more balanced two-way system of accountability and openness. Author empowerment that matches editorial and publisher empowerment is essential for a journal to truly claim to be fair, just and accountable.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"188-192"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41164764","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

Defining "recklessness" in research misconduct proceedings. 定义研究不端行为程序中的“鲁莽”。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-18 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2256650

Minal M Caron, Sarah B Dohan, Mark Barnes, Barbara E Bierer

{"title":"Defining \"recklessness\" in research misconduct proceedings.","authors":"Minal M Caron, Sarah B Dohan, Mark Barnes, Barbara E Bierer","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2256650","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2256650","url":null,"abstract":"To find research misconduct in research that has been supported by federal funds, an institution must determine that the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. \"Intentional\" and \"knowing\" are straightforward standards. Yet \"reckless\" often mystifies institutions, which struggle to assess whether a respondent's conduct should be deemed \"reckless,\" or merely negligent. This difficulty is most pronounced when allegations are lodged against the author under whose supervision the primary research was conducted - most often, the senior and/or corresponding author of a published paper who may not have been directly involved in performing the experiments or preparing the data under scrutiny. In these situations, investigation committees and the institutional \"deciding official\" must assess whether the supervising scientist is guilty of research misconduct - based on the theory that their supervision of the research and development of the publication containing falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized information was reckless - even if that person did not perform the experiment or assemble the research records in question. This paper seeks to provide a framework for evaluating the circumstances in which past supervisory conduct should be deemed \"reckless\" and thus a basis on which a finding of research misconduct may be made.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"120-142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10309018","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

Identifying the factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: An evidence-based review of the literature. 确定影响高等教育中剽窃行为的因素：基于证据的文献综述。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-30 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2311212

Raj Kishor Kampa, Dhirendra Kumar Padhan, Nalini Karna, Jayaram Gouda

{"title":"Identifying the factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: An evidence-based review of the literature.","authors":"Raj Kishor Kampa, Dhirendra Kumar Padhan, Nalini Karna, Jayaram Gouda","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2311212","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2311212","url":null,"abstract":"The present study explores the major reasons for committing plagiarism, as reported in published literature. One hundred sixty-six peer-reviewed articles, which were retrieved from the Scopus database, were carefully examined to find out the research studies conducted to explore the most common reasons for academic cheating among students and researchers in different disciplines in higher education. An analysis of collected literature reveals that 19 studies were conducted to identify the perceived reasons of committing plagiarism. Four studies with similar constructs of perceived reasons of committing plagiarism, namely busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness, easy accessibility of electronic resources, poor knowledge in research writing and correct citation and lack of serious penalty, were conducted. The pooled mean and standard deviation of the four studies reveal that easy accessibility of electronic resources (Mean = 3.6, SD = 0.81), unawareness of instructions (Mean = 3.0, SD = 0.89), and busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness (Mean = 2.89, SD = 1.0) are important perceived reasons for committing plagiarism. The study findings could help create an effective intervention and a robust anti-plagiarism policy for academic institutions, administrators, and policymakers in detecting academic dishonesty while emphasizing the value of integrity in academic pursuit.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"83-98"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139643292","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

It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584

Tamarinde Haven

{"title":"It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research.","authors":"Tamarinde Haven","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Supervision is one important means of promoting responsible research. However, what a responsible supervisor should do and how to foster a responsible supervisory climate is unclear.Methods: Between January 2023 and February 2024, I conducted 17 focus groups in The Netherlands and Denmark with 85 PhD candidates and PhD supervisors to understand what practices supervisors engage in to promote responsible conduct of research and what strategies could promote a responsible supervisory relationship.Results: Supervisors were found to promote responsible research by rigorously evaluating the relevance of studies, ensuring transparency, and taking the initiative in establishing clear authorship guidelines. They critically discussed the alignment between research questions, design, and analyses. Furthermore, supervisors implemented clear data management policies and normalized conversations about ethics. They led by example through clear and coherent writing. To foster a responsible supervisory relationship, supervisors challenged the PhD candidates' ideas and supported their decision-making processes. They were mindful of the PhD candidates' needs, tailoring the research trajectory. Supervisors also practiced self-awareness and cultivated a culture of care where every contribution was appreciated.Conclusions: The North-Western context is a major limitation. I connect these findings to established leadership theories and consider their implications for fostering responsible supervision.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143054099","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

Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2451168

Trisha Phillips, Jake Earl

{"title":"Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.","authors":"Trisha Phillips, Jake Earl","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2451168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2451168","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR 93), the first major revision of the regulation in nearly twenty years. Much of the commentary published about the 2024 Final Rule has focused on its impacts on research misconduct proceedings at institutions receiving Public Health Service funding. But formally addressing research misconduct is just one part of a larger effort needed to promote research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, and the new rule has the potential to affect this larger effort.Methods: This article examines the evolution of the 2024 Final Rule and analyzes five changes with the potential to have broader impacts on cultures of research integrity at U.S. institutions. We consider changes that did and not happen in development from the 2005 Final Rule to the 2023 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the 2024 Final Rule.Results: We identify three changes that the research community should welcome (partnership between ORI and the regulated community, identifying potential respondents, and defining research integrity), one change of concern (redefining plagiarism), and one change that might or might not be welcome (promoting research integrity and the responsible conduct of research).Conclusions: Although there is cause for concern about some of the 2024 Final Rule's potential implications for cultures of research integrity at US institutions, the positive changes support an optimistic outlook. In the coming years, it will be critical for HHS, ORI, the research community, and other stakeholders to work hand-in-hand to build on the progress made in the 2024 Final Rule to prevent and address research misconduct as part of a comprehensive effort to promote research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143054111","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

Seniority, authorship order, and severity of punishment in research misconduct - shared/honorary authorships as explanations for an apparent paradox. 研究不端行为中的资历、作者顺序和惩罚的严重程度——共同作者/荣誉作者对一个明显悖论的解释。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2453851

Bor Luen Tang

引用次数: 0

Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much. 出版商和期刊对同行评议的互惠性：没有那么多。

IF 2.8 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-01-08 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451

David Moher, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond

{"title":"Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much.","authors":"David Moher, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451","url":null,"abstract":"Peer reviewers provide a critical role in helping journals keep publishing. To understand the rewards and incentives offered to peer reviewers, we assessed what journals/publishers offered to one peer reviewer in biomedicine over a 1-month period (June 2023). After receiving 88 peer reviewer invitations, we noted that incentives were minimal. They include access to journal/publisher peer review training materials, reduced author processing charges of future article submissions, and free access to the journal/publisher website. Depending on the acceptance rate (30% or 50%) of recommendations to publish the article, peer review from this sample could generate anywhere from $USD 897,000 to $USD 1.45 million dollars when annualized. However, little, if any of this revenue is shared directly or indirectly with peer reviewers. With almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more reciprocity in a system that currently largely favors them disproportionately. This study is an anecdotal perspective of one peer reviewer's experience over a single month. While anecdotal, these findings highlight issues about the fairness and sustainability of the peer review system. We encourage others to expand on what we have done and include more empirical investigations.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142958377","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