Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献_第5页

Improving diversity in research: Successes and limitations of research team education in fostering inclusive recruitment practices and community voice. 提高研究的多样性：研究团队教育在促进包容性招聘实践和社区声音方面的成功与局限。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-22 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2632081

Susan Racine Passmore, Roger Brown, Morgan Medina, Kat Phelps, Mariana Garcia, Gina Green-Harris

{"title":"Improving diversity in research: Successes and limitations of research team education in fostering inclusive recruitment practices and community voice.","authors":"Susan Racine Passmore, Roger Brown, Morgan Medina, Kat Phelps, Mariana Garcia, Gina Green-Harris","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632081","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2632081","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The lack of diversity in research participation poses a threat to health equity and the ethical principle of justice. Yet few evidence-based interventions exist. This study compared two educational programs for research teams, designed to build capacity for inclusive recruitment practices.Methods: This parallel cluster randomized trial compared outcomes generated by an anti-bias focused educational workshop and one emphasizing pro-diversity learning. The evaluation consisted of pre-/post-intervention (n = 124) and 3-month follow-up surveys (n = 83). Regression analysis was employed to evaluate program efficacy, and the adoption of simple behaviors comparing groups at follow-up while controlling for pre-measurement levels and utilizing propensity weights. Interviews (n = 33) with participants explored experiences post-intervention.Results: There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between the test and control groups. Both workshop versions increased participants' self-efficacy and simple behaviors, including \"thinking about community perspectives\" and \"identifying ways to increase community voice\" at follow-up. Participants in the test group were the only ones to show a significant increase (within group) in \"making suggestions\" to their teams about using inclusive strategies (p = .02) and in increasing community voice (p = .00). Qualitative data indicate that pro-diversity activities provided participants with concrete ideas for suggestions and revealed persistent barriers faced by post-intervention.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2632081"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13014423/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147272780","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}

引用次数: 0

On the potential value conflict between scientific knowledge production and fair recognition of authorship. 论科学知识生产与作者公平承认之间潜在的价值冲突。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-02 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2623480

Gert Helgesson, William Bülow

引用次数: 0

Ethics tools for strengthening ethics review: A scoping Review. 加强伦理审查的伦理工具：范围审查。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-17 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2642202

Antonija Mijatović, Bruno Kačer, Dea Miletić, Tea Vranković, Nika Vuco, Ana Marušić

{"title":"Ethics tools for strengthening ethics review: A scoping Review.","authors":"Antonija Mijatović, Bruno Kačer, Dea Miletić, Tea Vranković, Nika Vuco, Ana Marušić","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2642202","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2642202","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ethics review of research and innovation activities face growing challenges due to rapid scientific and technological advances, interdisciplinary research, and wider societal implications, such as environmental impacts and value conflicts.Methods: To promote more adaptive and robust governance, we conducted a scoping review of tools and frameworks developed to enhance ethics review.Results: A systematic search of Scopus and Web of Science identified 39 relevant publications describing conceptual and practical ethics tools, including scenario-based planning, ethical matrices, anticipatory governance frameworks, participatory deliberation models, decision-support protocols, and computational approaches. These tools were applied across domains such as artificial intelligence, genomics, conservation, and public health. Key themes included early-stage ethics integration, participatory engagement, managing value conflicts, and addressing uncertainty. The tools were mapped within a two-dimensional matrix describing variations in engagement (expert-driven vs. participatory) and temporal orientation (reactive vs. anticipatory), illustrating a shift toward anticipatory and participatory approaches.Conclusions: These findings indicate a move from static, checklist-based reviews to dynamic, participatory, and forward-looking ethics governance.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2642202"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147476227","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. 修正。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-19 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2691609

引用次数: 0

Accountability in evidence syntheses: On the need for rigorous peer review and reporting guidelines. 证据综合中的问责制：关于严格的同行评议和报告准则的必要性。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-12 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2634744

Caitlin Bakker, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Will White, Jodi Schneider

{"title":"Accountability in evidence syntheses: On the need for rigorous peer review and reporting guidelines.","authors":"Caitlin Bakker, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Will White, Jodi Schneider","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2634744","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2634744","url":null,"abstract":"It is an unfortunate reality that metascience and metaresearch are not immune to methodological or reporting issues. Best practices for conducting and reporting evidence syntheses are well-established, and we expect them to be enforced by this journal. Thus, we were surprised to see a recent \"systematic review\" published in Accountability in Research state that the first article published about retractions was from 1998. As we know of several potentially relevant articles published prior to 1998, we looked deeper into the review and its methodology. Because of the methodological and reporting flaws throughout the review, which we describe in this commentary, the conclusions it presents overstate the certainty and completeness of the findings, and the review includes inaccuracies. That these issues were seemingly not addressed prior to publication highlights the importance of involving individuals with methodological expertise, including search expertise, in the review process, and the necessity of adhering to the appropriate reporting guidelines to ensure accuracy, credibility, and reproducibility. We call on Accountability in Research to ensure that evidence syntheses are peer reviewed by individuals with appropriate methodological expertise; to ensure that authors are adhering to appropriate reporting guidelines; and to consider requiring study preregistration and presubmission inquiries for evidence syntheses.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2634744"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148239787","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

Opening Pandora's box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles. 打开潘多拉的盒子：通过撤回文章培养审稿人的修辞敏感性。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-25 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2607681

Baraa Khuder

引用次数: 0

Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study. 重新思考生物医学提案同行评审中的盲法：一项多利益相关者的定性研究。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-07 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625

Seba Qussini, Farizah Mezer Anami, Kris Dierickx

{"title":"Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study.","authors":"Seba Qussini, Farizah Mezer Anami, Kris Dierickx","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals' peer review. This study aims to explore stakeholders' perspectives on the role of (un)blinding and the implications of open peer review for biomedical proposals' peer review.Methods: We conducted a generic descriptive qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm, using semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar. Transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the 6-step thematic framework analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked to rate 7 quantitative statements to supplement the qualitative data.Results: Codes with shared characteristics were grouped into categories, and ultimately three themes were generated: (1) the importance of increased transparency in fund allocation procedures while maintaining blinded reviewers' identities, (2) open peer review as a feasible approach for enhancing transparency and accountability in proposals' peer review, and (3) a growing critical stance toward traditional peer review systems.Conclusion: While there remains a strong preference for double-blinded review within the context of our study, its limitations have become evident-particularly given current funding challenges. These shortcomings highlight the need for greater openness in peer review and increased transparency in fund allocation processes.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2593625"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145702566","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

To be or not to be value-free? A tension in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 是价值自由还是不价值自由？欧洲研究诚信行为准则的紧张局势。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-31 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2622302

Jacopo Ambrosj, Kris Dierickx, Hugh Desmond

引用次数: 0

Guidelines needed for the use of AI in the preparation or review of IRB, IBC, and IACUC applications. 在IRB、IBC和IACUC申请的准备或审查中使用人工智能所需的指南。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-08 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2612564

Mohammad Hosseini, Daniel Eisenman, James Riddle, Stephanie Pyle, Anju Peters, Nichelle Cobb, Kristi Holmes

{"title":"Guidelines needed for the use of AI in the preparation or review of IRB, IBC, and IACUC applications.","authors":"Mohammad Hosseini, Daniel Eisenman, James Riddle, Stephanie Pyle, Anju Peters, Nichelle Cobb, Kristi Holmes","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2612564","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2612564","url":null,"abstract":"Three oversight bodies review research proposals to help ensure the safe and responsible conduct of biomedical research, each focusing on unique aspects of research ethics: institutional review boards (IRBs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs). The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in research oversight is rapidly expanding, specifically when preparing and reviewing applications. Although using AI may reduce administrative costs and burdens, it also may create new concerns since AI tools can make mistakes of fact and reasoning, and are susceptible to bias. Furthermore, outsourcing ethical planning and oversight of research to AI could compromise ethical understanding. Although the arguments for/against using AI in preparation or review of IRB, IBC, or IACUC differ fundamentally from those concerning AI use in manuscript writing/peer review, currently there is minimal guidance about the responsible use of AI in research oversight from government agencies, professional organizations, universities, hospitals, and other entities that conduct research. We argue that 1) to minimize the risks of using AI in research oversight, additional guidance is urgently needed; and 2) humans must always be the final decider because ethical planning and oversight involve value judgments that should not be outsourced to AI.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2612564"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12823195/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145936049","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}

引用次数: 0

Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts. 比较开放获取期刊与传统期刊。

IF 4.4 1区哲学

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-18 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211

Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M Odeh, Shawn M Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar

{"title":"Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts.","authors":"Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M Odeh, Shawn M Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.Methods: The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).Conclusions: Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2575211"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145314124","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