Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

{"title":"Using mixed methods research to study research integrity: Current status, issues, and guidelines.","authors":"Gengyan Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2449041","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2449041","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The multifaceted nature of research integrity (RI) calls for the adoption of innovative methodologies to achieve a more thorough understanding. Mixed methods research (MMR) provides a valuable framework by combining diverse data sources, enabling a more nuanced exploration of complex research questions.<b>Methods:</b> This paper reviews seven RI studies employing MMR to identify methodological shortcomings. It introduces key concepts and typologies of MMR and proposes actionable strategies to enhance methodological rigor and innovation.<b>Results:</b> The review identified three key issues in current MMR applications: 1. Insufficient articulation of methodological contributions. 2. Limited visualization of quantitative and qualitative data integration. 3. Minimal engagement with recent MMR advancements. To address these gaps, a targeted To-Do List was created, offering actionable strategies for improving methodological rigor. Additionally, underutilized MMR designs, such as convergent and exploratory sequential designs, were recommended to strengthen data synthesis and expand analytical perspectives.<b>Conclusions:</b> MMR provides valuable opportunities to enhance RI research. This paper offers practical guidance for adopting MMR, addressing methodological gaps, and fostering robust, integrative research practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142923963","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":"An analysis of availability and implications of unlabeled retracted articles on Sci-Hub.","authors":"Biju V V, Sanjo Jose, Franklin J, Jasimudeen S","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers are increasingly accessing scientific articles through unauthorized websites like Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub contains retracted articles, including those which are not labelled as retracted, and this is a potential threat to academic research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyses the extent of the availability of retracted articles within the Sci-Hub, particularly focusing on the presence of unlabeled retracted articles (URA) which may inadvertently be used in subsequent research, thus propagating flawed findings. The authors identified 16925 English-language research articles retracted between 2003 and 2022 indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. These articles were cross-checked with Sci-Hub to ascertain whether they were appropriately labelled as retracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The investigation revealed that 84.83% of the retracted articles available on Sci-Hub do not have any indication of their retracted status. These URA could potentially be reused by researchers, unaware of their retracted status. The availability of URA in the field of health sciences is particularly high, which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the crucial need for stringent implementation of regulatory measures on retraction suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or newly published National Information Standards Organization (NISO) recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142916283","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 measure to quantify predatory publishing is urgently needed.","authors":"Yuki Yamada, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2186225","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2186225","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The issue of predatory publishing is of increasing concern to the academic community. In this letter, we express more concern than hope about a recently launched online machine-learning tool that identifies suspected predatory journals based on existing black/white lists and textual information from journal websites. First, the tool relies on outdated and criticized blacklists, cannot capture cloned or hijacked journals, and may misclassify legitimate journals as \"suspected predatory\". Second, a gray zone in predatory publishing exists where some unscholarly characteristics might exist, although the journal overall might not be considered \"predatory\". We tested this tool and found that it classified three well-established journals in the field of academic publishing as \"suspected predatory\". This may lead to undeserving negative publicity without concrete evidence of \"predatory\" behavior or characteristics. We argue that this tool is very premature and may lead to unfair journal classification. Considerable accountability is needed to fortify its development. We advocate for an inclusive system that involves international stakeholders, and that benefits the academic community as a \"warning\" system.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"79-81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10831270","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":"An active aigiarism declaration for manuscript submission.","authors":"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2185776","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2185776","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"77-78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9407493","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":"Research anomalies in criminology: How serious? How extensive over time? And who was responsible?","authors":"Walter R Schumm, Duane W Crawford, Lorenza Lockett, Abdullah AlRashed, Asma Bin Ateeq","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2241127","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2241127","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A variety of ways to detect questionable research practices in small sample social science surveys have been discussed by a variety of authors. However, some of those approaches (e.g., GRIM test, SPRITE test) do not work well for results obtained from larger samples. Here several approaches for detecting anomalies in larger samples are presented and illustrated by an analysis of 78 journal articles in the area of criminology, 59 by Dr. Eric Stewart, published since 1998 with similar methods and/or authors. Of all 59 articles, 28 (47.5%, <i>p</i> < .001, d = 0.94) had two or more major anomalies compared to none of the 19 control group articles. It was also found that the larger the role of Dr. Stewart in article authorship, the greater the number of anomalies detected (<i>p</i> < .001, d = 1.01) while for his coauthors, there were few significant relationships between their roles and total anomalies. Our results demonstrate that extensive problematic results can remain undetected for decades despite several levels of peer review and other scientific controls; however, use of two types of control groups and the use of statistical methods for measuring and evaluating anomalies can improve detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"22-58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9890416","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 comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute.","authors":"Virginia Sanchini, Luca Marelli, Massimo Monturano, Giuseppina Bonizzi, Giulia Peruzzotti, Roberto Orecchia, Gabriella Pravettoni","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2248884","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2248884","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"59-76"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10143847","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":"Whistleblowing legislation and reporting on research misconduct: A case for mutual learning.","authors":"Olivier Leclerc","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2240705","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2240705","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Regulations on reporting research misconduct have undergone a remarkable process of development since the 1980s. At the same time, many states have also developed legislation governing the receiving of alerts and for protecting whistleblowers against reprisal. Although these two bodies of legislation share the aim of organizing the practice of reporting, they have been developed in isolation from each other, and without sufficient thought as to how they should be linked. Based on an analysis of European Union law and its transposition in France, this article identifies the convergences and divergences between whistleblowing legislation and the reporting of research misconduct. It then looks at the contributions that each body of law can make to the other, both in terms of the procedures applicable and the protection afforded to whistleblowers. The lessons learned from the comparison of whistleblowing law and the procedures for reporting scientific misconduct allow for the identification of avenues for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9893599","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 proposed framework to address metric inflation in research publications.","authors":"Peter Mora, Simone Pilia","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since the advent of online research metrics, which began with Web of Science in 1997, these metrics have been increasingly used to rank researchers and universities. Over the last two decades, the easy access to research metrics has greatly benefitted the academic community and beyond by providing quantitative measures for ranking researchers, universities and departments. However, this accessibility, accompanied by a tendency to quantitatively evaluate research quality and impact, has also shifted the focus toward practices aimed at enhancing research metrics rather than pursuing high-quality, potentially path-breaking research. This trend threatens to degrade global research advancement and invalidate rankings.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We perform an analysis of statistics from the Stanford's top 2% list and Nobel Laureates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We demonstrate that an accelerating number of researchers - on the order of 10% or 20,000 researchers on Stanford's Top 2% researchers - are achieving implausibly high-publication and new coauthor rates, with many producing tens to hundreds of papers per year, and gaining hundreds to thousands of new coauthors annually.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We propose a method to renormalize research metrics. Our renormalized metrics aim to remove the incentive for researchers to prioritize quantity or resort to unethical practices to boost their metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142900209","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":"AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al.","authors":"Dag Øivind Madsen, Shahab Saquib Sohail","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2445278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2445278","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142900210","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":"Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?","authors":"Bjørn Hofmann","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Polarized research has become a problem for the trustworthiness and applicability of scientific results. Accordingly, this paper addresses three key questions: 1) What is polarization in scientific research? 2) Why is such polarization problematic? 3) How can the problem be addressed?<b>Methods:</b> The first question is addressed by describing how the polarization has been characterized in the literature and by analysing an example before assessing existing definitions and elaborating a definition of polarization. The second question is answered by describing challenges with polarization found in the literature. The third question is addressed by investigating different explanations for and relevant mechanisms behind polarization in research, such as psychological, structural, epistemic and ontological, evaluative, and social-constructionist explanations. Moreover, several approaches from the philosophy of science are investigated.<b>Results:</b> Polarization in research is characterized by opposing and incommensurable positions that tend to stem from differences in basic values, and that are used to define, differentiate, bolster, and demarcate between groups and for reinforcing their identity. The problem with polarization is that it violates a broad range of basic norms in science, and hampers scientific progress, represents large opportunity costs, undermines trust in science and, subsequently that it undercuts the application of scientific results as well as future funding. There are many potential measures to reduce polarization. However, there are no simple solutions, as polarization is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in basic human characteristics.<b>Conclusion:</b> Polarization is a ubiquitous phenomenon and a basic challenge for scientific research. It is crucial to increase the awareness of polarization, and a clear definition is key to study and address the problem. However, while there are many ways to actively address the problem of polarization in scientific research, there are no easy solutions. More research is needed to move from what we can do to what we should do.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142830786","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}